^     LIB''    vKY 
nivcrsity         California 

IRVINE 


REVIEW 


OF 


BASTIAT'S  SOPHISMS  OF  PROTECTION.    /. 


BY 


GEORGE    BASIL  DIXWELL. 


CAMBRIDGE : 
JOHN    WILSON    AND    SON. 

Slnibtrsits  Prtss. 
1883. 


fiF 


Copyright,  1883. 
By  George  Basil  Dixwelu 


University  Press: 
John  Wilson  and  Son,  Cambridgb. 


REVIEW 


or 


BASTIAT'S   SOPHISMS    OF   PROTECTION. 


The  preface  tells  us  that  "  the  primary  object  of  the  League 
is  to  educate  public  opiuion,  to  convince  the  people  of  the 
United  States  of  the  folly  and  wrongfulness  of  the  protective 
system."  It  quotes  Senator  Morrill  as  saying  that  "  the  year 
1860  was  a  year  of  as  large  production  and  as  much  general 
prosperity  as  any,  perhaps,  in  our  history  "  ;  but  these  words 
would  probably  bear  a  different  aspect  if  read  with  the  con- 
text, as  the  condition  of  that  year  was  very  differently  de- 
scribed by  H.  C.  Carey  as  follows  :  — 

"  What  it  is  which  may  be  positively  affirmed  in  refereuce  to  that 
Jluctuation  of  -policy  which  struck  down  the  great  iron  manufacture,  at 
the  monient  at  which  it  had  just  begun  to  exhibit  its  power  for  good, 
would  seem  to  be  this :  that  in  the  British  monopoly  system  which 
thereafter  followed,  we  added  something  less  than  forty  per  cent,  to  our 
population  ;  seventy,  to  our  machinery  for  water  transportation;  and  five 
hundred,  to  that  required  for  transportation  by  land ;  meanwhile  ma- 
terially diminishing  the  quantity  of  iron  applied  to  works  of  production. 
When  you  shall  have  carefully  studied  all  this,  you  may  perhaps  find 
yourself  enabled  to  account  for  the  facts,  that  in  the  closing  year  of 
the  free  trade  period,  railroad  property  that  had  cost  more  than  a 
thousand  millions  could  not  have  been  sold  for  three  hundred  and 
fifty  ;  that  ships  had  become  ruinous  to  nearly  all  their  owners ;  that 
factories,  furnaces,  mills,  mines,  and  workshops  had  been  everywhere 
deserted ;  that  hundreds  of  thousands  of  working  men  had  been 
everywhere    seeking,    and    vainly    seeking,   to  sell   their  labor ;    that 


4  REVIEW   OP   BASTIAT'S   SOPHISMS   OF   PROTECTION. 

immigration  had  heavily  declined ;  that  pauperism  had  existed  to  an 
extent  wholly  unknown  since  the  great  free  trade  crisis  of  1842 ;  that 
bankruptcies  had  become  general  throughout  the  Union ;  that  power 
to  contribute  to  the  public  revenue  had  greatly  diminished;  and 
finally,  that  the  slave  power  had  felt  itself  to  have  become  so  greatly 
strengthened  as  to  warrant  it  in  entering  on  the  Great  Rebellion." 

So  much  for  one  of  the  premises  of  the  preface.  Another 
of  the  premises  is  a  quotation  from  Miss  Martiueau  made  to 
show  that  the  superiority  of  Great  Britain  in  manufactures 
was  not  attained  by  means  of  protection,  but  that  protection 
had  brought  Great  Britain  to  the  verge  of  ruin  in  1842. 

But  the  superiority  of  Great  Britain  was  gained  long  before 
1842.  The  troubles  at  that  time  were  the  result  of  over- 
trading, of  over-pushing  of  the  manufacturing  industries. 
Sir  Robert  Peel  afterwards  lost  his  head,  and  yielded  to  the 
Free  Trade  League,  who  were  waging  war  upon  the  land- 
owners, and  seeking  to  make  the  prosperity  of  England 
hang,  as  Carlyle  forcibly  said,  upon  being  able  to  manufac- 
ture cottons  a  farthing  a  yard  cheaper  than  other  people. 
The  millocracy  triumphed  over  the  landowners,  and,  for- 
tunately for  England,  the  gold  of  California  and  Australia 
brought  about  a  general  improvement  in  trade,  which  post- 
poned the  consequences  for  a  long  period.  But  they  are 
seen  now  in  Ireland,  and  may  soon  be  seen  in  England. 
Meanwhile  free  trade  has  not  prevented  scenes  in  England 
quite  equal  to  those  pictured  by  Miss  Martineau,  They 
occurred  from  1866  to  1870  ;  but  quotations  would  need- 
lessly swell  this  article. 

The  preface  adds, — 

"  Again,  it  is  said  there  is  need  of  diversifying  our  industries,  as 
though  industry  would  not  diversify  itself  sufficiently  through  the 
diverse  tastes  and  predilections  of  individuals, —  as  though  it  was 
necessary  to  supplement  the  work  of  the  Creator  in  this  behalf  by 
human  enactments  founded  upon  reciprocal  rapine." 

The  "work  of  the  Creator "  and  "reciprocal  rapine"  are 
good  rhetoric  :  they  are  not  logic.  They  take  for  granted  the 
question   which  is  to  be   proved.      The   pretty   alliteration 


REVIEW   OF  BASTIAT's   SOPHISMS   OP  PROTECTION.  5 

miglit  delight  a  doctrinaire :  it  would  produce  no  effect 
upon  the  masculine  judgment  of  a  Napoleon,  against  whom 
Bastiat  modestly  puts  himself. 

We  come  now  to  Chapter  I.,  entitled,  "Abundance, — 
Scarcity." 

Throughout  this  chapter  M.  Bastiat  supposes  that  abun- 
dance and  cheapness  are  necessarily  coexistent.  He  does  not 
know,  or  he  does  not  appear  to  know,  that  a  low  price  is 
perfectly  compatible  with  great  scarcity  ;  that  abundance 
exists  only  w^here  a  large  supply  is  co-existent  with  a  large 
effective  demand  ;  that  it  is  in  vain  to  offer  things  for  a  little 
money  to  one  who  has  no  money,  and  no  work  by  which  to 
earn  money.     At  the  end  he  says  : — 

*'  But  it  is  answered,  if  we  are  inundated  with  foreign  goods  and 

produce,  our  coin    will    leave    the    country Well,  and  what 

matters  that  ?  Man  is  not  fed  with  coin.  He  does  not  dress  in  gold, 
nor  warm  himself  with  silver.  What  difference  does  it  make  whether 
there  be  more  or  less  coin  in  the  country,  provided  there  be  more 
bread  in  the  cupboard,  more  meat  in  the  larder,  more  clothing  in  the 
press,  and  more  wood  in  the  cellar  ?  " 

Yes  !  provided  ;  but  how  would  it  be  provided  there  was 
much  less  of  all  these  things  ? 

Did  not  M.  Bastiat  know  that  the  very  fact  of  the  coin 
leaving  the  country  proved  that  the  home  industries  were 
not  adequate  to  pay  for  the  importations,  and  that  these 
must  therefore  cease  as  soon  as  the  coin  was  exhausted  ? 
A  country  has  perchance  four  thousand  millions  of  mechani- 
cal and  manufactured  products,  the  result  of  its  own  industry. 
It  hankers  after  cheapness,  and  opens  its  ports.  It  is  deluged. 
It  gets  products  at  first  more  cheaply.  But  the  industries 
in  which  it  has  an  advantage  furnish  only,  OR  can  be  taken 
only  to  the  extent  of,  one  thousand  millions.  When  its 
treasure  is  gone,  it  must  satisfy  itself  with  one  thousand 
millions.  These  it  may  or  may  not  thereafter  get  cheaply. 
Probably  it  will  get  them  very  dearly  by  reason  of  the  low 
price  at  which  it  will  have  to  sell  what  pi-eviously,  with  a 
fully  employed  population,  it  could  use  itself.     But  whether 


6  REVIEW   OF   BASTIAT's   SOPHISMS   OF   PROTECTION. 

it  gets  its  small  pittance  cheaply  or  dearly,  it  must  go  without 
the  other  three  thousand  millions.     This  is  what  it  will  get 
for  mistaking  cheapness  for  abundance. 
Bastiat  concludes  as  follows : — 

"  To  restrictive  laws  I  offer  this  dilemma, —  Either  you  allow  that 
you  produce  scarcity,  or  you  do  not  allow  it.  If  you  allow  it,  you 
confess  at  once  that  your  end  is  to  injure  the  people  as  much  as 
possible.  If  you  do  not  allow  it,  then  you  deny  your  power  to  dim- 
inish the  supply,  to  raise  the  price,  and  consequently  you  deny  having 
favored  the  producer.  You  are  either  injurious  or  inefficient.  You 
can  never  be  useful." 

M.  Bastiat  evidently  thought  he  had  used  brilliant  logic. 
But  restrictive  laws  have  for  their  object  to  produce  abun- 
dance, and  they  effect  their  object :  if  they  raise  the  price, 
they  increase  in  a  much  greater  degree  the  effective  demand, 
—  the  ability  to  pay  the  price.  The  limitation  of  the  for- 
eign market  makes  it  simply  impossible  to  employ  the  whole 
working  force  of  the  United  States  upon  those  industries 
in  which  it  has  a  decided  advantage.  The  rest  must  be 
employed  upon  fields,  less  advantageous  perhaps,  but  infin- 
itely more  advantageous  than  living  in  the  poorhouse  or 
helping  somebody  do  what  he  can  perfectly  well  do  alone. 

Napoleon  hit  the  mark  when  he  said  that  "  if  an  empire 
were  made  of  adamant,  the  economists  would  grind  it  to 
powder." 

Bastiat  desires  the  consumer  to  have  everything  offered  to 
him  at  a  cheap  rate;  he  is  entirely  indifferent  about  his 
having  or  not  having  the  means  of  buying.  In  fact,  the 
consumer  of  the  free  trader  was  described  by  Homer,  under 
the  name  of  Tantalus  : — 

"  Then  Tantalus  along  the  Stygian  bounds  ; 

Pours  out  deep  groans  ;  with  groans  all  hell  resounds. 
From  circhng  floods  in  vain  refreshment  craves, 
And  pines  with  thirst  amidst  a  sea  of  waves  ; 
"When  to  the  water  he  his  lip  applies. 
Back  from  his  lip  the  treacherous  water  flies. 


REVIEW   OF   BASTIAT's   SOPHISMS    OF   PROTECTION.  7 

Above,  beneath,  around  his  hapless  head, 

Trees  of  all  kinds  delicious  fruitage  spread  ; 

There  figs,  sky -dyed,  a  purple  hue  disclose ; 

Green  looks  the  olive,  the  pomegranate  glows  ; 

There  dangling  pears  exalted  scents  unfold, 

And  yellow  apples  ripen  into  gold. 

The  fruit  he  strives  to  seize  ;  but  blasts  arise, 

Toss  it  on  high,  and  whirl  it  to  the  skies." — Pope's  Odyssey. 

For  nineteen  twentieths,  nay  the  whole  of  the  commu- 
nity, production  is  the  condition  precedent  of  consumption. 
That  which  a  nation  can  consume  in  a  year  is  its  annual 
product.  Strike  to  the  earth  a  third  part  of  its  industries,  and 
you  by  the  very  act  strike  off  a  third  of  the  average  indi- 
vidual income.  The  economist  who  is  not  aware  of  these 
things  has  studied  to  little  purpose  either  Adam  Smith  or 
J.  B.  Say :  he  has  gathered  in  their  chaff,  and  left  the  wheat 
untouched.  Abundance  is  impossible  to  the  man  of  the 
empty  purse. 

After  the  Bastiat  fashion,  I  will  offer  a  dilemma  to  the 
free-traders.  Either  they  know  the  above,  or  they  do  not 
know  it.  If  they  know  it,  they  must  cease  preaching  free- 
trade  ;  if  they  do  not  know  it,  they  should  come  to  the 
people  of  the  United  States  to  learn,  but  not  to  teach,  politi- 
cal economy. 

Chapter  II.  is  entitled  "  Obstacle  —  Cause." 
In  this  chapter  Bastiat  misses  entirely  the  perception  of 
the  protectionist  doctrine,  wdiich  is  not  that  wants  are  riches, 
or  that  labor  is  riches,  but  that  the  ability  to  satisfy  wants 
is  riches.  The  gross  annual  product  of  the  nation  being  A, 
will  not  be  diminished  by  the  introduction  of  machinery.  It 
will  be  diminished  by  substituting  a  foreign  for  a  domestic 
product,  unless  the  foreign  product  is  so  much  cheaper  as  to 
immensely  increase  consumption  in  spite  of  the  diminished 
means  of  purchase,  and  unless  also  the  relations  of  the  two 
nations  financially  are  such  that  the  imports  will  be  paid 
for  by  exports :  and  even  then  the  new  arrangement  leaves 
the  country  less  independent ;  withdraws  from  it  the  possi- 


8  REVIEW   OF   BASTIAT'S   SOPHISMS   OP   PROTECTION. 

bility — nay,  probability — of  afterwards  reducing  the  cost  by 
increased  skill  and  by  invention  ;  lessens  the  diversification 
of  industries  ;  and  takes  from  the  nation  the  incidental  advan- 
tages which  often  spring  from  the  stimulating  effect  of  one 
industry  upon  others.  Who  can  measure  the  effect  in  the 
United  States  of  the  introduction  of  the  cotton  manufacture 
upon  the  other  industries  in  which  machinery  assists  labor  ? 
If  we  had  never  had  the  cotton  manufacture,  it  is  not  likely 
that  even  our  agriculture  would  have  reached  anything  like 
its  present  efficiency ;  and  many  other  arts  would  probably 
not  have  been  acquired  at  all  up  to  the  present  day. 

In  this  chapter  Bastiat  says,  with  italics,  that  "  labor  is 
never  without  employment.''''  This  is  flying  in  the  face  of  facts 
with  a  vengeance.  What  can  be  the  value  of  the  method  of 
reasoning  which  conducts  a  clever  man  to  such  a  conclusion 
in  spite  of  his  eyes  and  ears? 

Chapter  III.  is  entitled  "  Effort  —  Result." 

In  this  chapter  Bastiat  quotes  a  number  of  French  legis- 
lators ;  and  if  he  quotes  them  correctly,  the  reasons  fliey 
gave  for  their  votes  or  measures  were  not  very  wise,  and 
furnished  an  opportunity  for  an  easy  victory.  But  it  often 
happens  that  practical  men  are  not  introspective,  not  accus- 
tomed to  put  into  words  the  real  reasons  which  underlie  their 
actions.  When  called  upon  to  do  so,  they  fumble  about  in 
their  minds,  and  end  in  producing,  not  their  real  reason,  but 
some  very  inadequate  substitute  of  it.  A  "  smart "  writer 
like  M.  Bastiat  at  once  falls  upon  their  alleged  reasons, 
demolishes  them,  and  concludes  that  their  authors  were 
fools,  when  very  likely  they  were  in  reality  far  wiser  than 
he  who  felt  himself  entitled  to  sit  in  judgment.  It  may  well 
be,  taking  all  things  into  consideration,  that  the  opulence  of 
France,  altogether,  is  increased  rather  than  diminished  by 
herself  producing  iron  at  sixteen  francs  which  she  could  buy 
of  England  at  eight :  her  safety  and  independence  are  cer- 
tainly promoted. 

Chapter  IV.  is  entitled  "  Equalizing  of  the  Facihties  of 
Production." 


REVIEW   OF   BASTIAT'S   SOPHISMS    OF   PROTECTION.  9 

M.  Bastiat  first  quarrels  with  the  phrase,  which  has  not 
certainly  mathematical  exactitude,  but  which  can  easily 
enough  be  understood  by  any  one  whose  object  is  to  get  at 
ideas,  and  not  to  triumph  over  words.  It  means  that  where 
one  nation  has  an  advantage  over  another  as  to  cheapness  of 
.production,  —  such  as  Great  Britain  has  over  the  United 
States  by  reason  of  cheaper  labor,  not  yet  compensated  by 
greater  skill  upon  our  part,  —  she  can  beat  down  and  annihi- 
late our  efforts  to  help  ourselves  and  to  acquire  greater  skill. 
She  has  been  prevented  from  doing  this  by  our  protective 
duties  ;  and  in  many  articles  we  have  already  acquired  a 
skill  sufiQcient  to  give  us  here  at  home  the  articles,  even  at  a 
cheaper  monied  price  than  we  could  import  them.  In  some 
we  have  not  succeeded  as  yet  so  well ;  and  in  some  we  prob- 
ably never  shall,  so  long  as  we  strive  to  keep  up  among  us 
that  higher  rate  of  real  wages  which  is  our  chief  hope  for  the 
future.  But  the  higher  price  will  be  much  more  than  com- 
pensated to  the  nation  by  the  double  production  provoked  by 
a  home  exchange,  as  against  the  single  production  provoked 
by  a  foreign  exchange ;  as  also  by  our  greater  security  both 
in  peace  and  in  war,  and  also  by  the  incidental  stimulus 
which  one  industry  gives  to  others. 

Bastiat  says  that  in  this  case,  as  in  all,  "  the  protectionists 
favor  the  producer,  while  the  poor  consumer  seems  entirely  to 
have  escaped  their  attention."  He  seems  to  forget  that  nearly 
all  of  the  poor  consumers  are  consumers  only  in  consequence 
of  their  being  able  to  produce  ;  and  that  those  few  who  do 
not  produce  themselves  are  dependent  upon  the  profits  of 
productive  instruments,  which  would  cease  to  yield  a  profit 
if  the  producing  consumers  could  not  produce,  and  therefore 
could  not  consume.  If  the  consumers'  means  of  buying 
were  rained  down  miraculously  from  the  sky,  the  Bastiat 
philosophy  might  be  excellent ;  but  as  long  as  their  means  of 
buying  are  entirely  dependent  upon  their  first  producing,  it 
would  seem  that  the  individual  should  be  considered  in  both 
relations. 

Bastiat  contends,  first,  that  equalizing  the  facilities  of  pro- 
duction is  to  attack  the  foundations  of  all  trade. 


10  REVIEW   OF   BASTIAT'S   SOPHISMS    OF   PROTECTION. 

To  attempt  to  equalize  all  facilities  —  say,  rather,  to  counter 
balance  all  advantages — might  be  open  to  his  objection.  But 
the  American  protectionist,  for  whose  conversion  the  volume 
under  review  was  published,  does  not  propose  to  compensate 
great  differences  growing  out  of  soil  and  climate.  He  does 
not  propose  to  grow  pineapples  under  glass  at  ten  times  the 
cost  of  im'portation,  nor  to  do  any  other  of  the  like  absurdities 
imagined  by  Bastiat.  What  he  does  propose  is,  to  balance 
the  altogether  artificial  advantages  arising  out  of  accidental 
superiority  in  skill  until  we  can  ourselves  acquire  the  like 
skill  ;  to  balance  the  difference  arising  out  of  our  dearer 
labor  and  capital ;  and  to  protect  our  industries  from  the 
mischievous  attacks  in  which  products  are  sold  under  cost 
for  the  very  object  of  destroying  competitors.  We  have  full 
faith  that  the  competition  of  fifty  millions  of  people  will  suf- 
fice to  bring  as  low  prices  and  as  much  skill  as  are  possible 
under  the  circumstances  ;  and  that  the  result  will  be  that  we 
shall  produce  everything  which  our  climate  and  soil  permit 
at  considerably  less  sacrifice  of  labor  and  abstinence  than 
the  same  things  cost  when  brought  from  abroad. 

M.  Bastiat  says,  second,  that  it  is  not  true  that  the  labor 
of  one  country  can  be  crushed  by  the  competition  of  more 
favored  climates. 

But  it  is  quite  true  that  domestic  arts  and  manufactures, 
which  are  most  important  to  possess,  can  be  crushed  by  the 
competition  of  countries  having  cheaper  labor  and  equal  or 
greater  skill.  If  he  meant  his  No.  2  to  assert  or  insinuate 
the  contrary,  the  hardihood  of  the  assertion  or  insinuation 
would  hardly  require  an  answer.  Deductive  reasoning  shows 
that  it  can,  and  history  shows  that  it  does. 

He  says,  third,  that  protective  duties  cannot  equalize  the 
facilities  of  production  ;  fourth,  that  freedom  of  trade  equal- 
izes these  conditions  as  much  as  possible  \.  and,  fifth,  that 
the  countries  which  are  the  least  favored  by  nature  are  those 
which  profit  most  by  freedom  of  trade. 

In  all  this  he  chooses  to  misunderstand  what  is  meant  by 
equalizing  the  facilities  of  production.  This  is  simple  trifling. 
Next  he  exemplifies  his  position  by  supposing  a  case  of  Pari- 


REVIEW   OF  BASTIAT's  SOPHISMS   OF   PROTECTION.  11 

sian  speculators  producing  oranges  at  ten  times  the  cost  of 
importing  them  from  Portugal,  and  being  protected  by  a  duty 
of  nine  hundred  per  cent.  This  is  also  trifling :  it  has  noth- 
ino-  to  do  whatever  with  any  actual  question  as  to  protection. 
Then  follow  several  excellent  paragraphs,  showing  how  any 
improvement  in  production  spreads  itself  to  the  advantage  of 
the  whole  community,  and  showing  how  natural  advantages, 
and  also,  finally,  the  advantages  arising  from  inventions,  come 
to  be  enjoyed  by  consumers  gratis,  they  paying  only  the 
necessary  wages  of  labor  and  abstinence.  But  after  all  those 
excellent  and  really  eloquent  paragraphs  comes  this :  — 

"  Hence  we  see  the  enormous  absurdity  of  the  consuming  country, 
which  rejects  produce  precisely  because  it  is  cheap.  It  is  as  though 
we  should  say,  '  We  will  have  nothing  of  that  which  Nature  gives  you. 
You  ask  of  us  an  effort  equal  to  two,  in  order  to  furnish  ourselves  with 
articles  only  attainable  at  home  by  an  effort  equal  to  four.  You  can 
do  it  because  with  you  Nature  does  half  the  work.  But  we  will  have 
nothing  to  do  with  it ;  we  will  wait  till  your  climate,  becoming  more 
inclement,  forces  you  to  ask  of  us  a  labor  equal  to  four,  and  then  we 
can  treat  with  you  upon  an  equal  footing.' " 

This  is  one  of  Bastiat's  extreme  cases,  but  under  certain 
circumstances  it  would  not  be  altogether  so  absurd  as  he  ap- 
pears to  imagine,  e.  g.  :  — 

The  products  in  which  the  United  States  have  an  advantage 
are  agricultural.  They  can  produce  enough  for  themselves 
and  as  much  more.  Call  the  possible  product  2  A.  Suppose 
that  what  they  cannot  produce  except  at  a  double  effort  are 
mechanical  and  manufactured  products.  Call  these  M.  There 
is  a  foreign  demand  for  |  A.  Under  free  trade  there  can  be 
produced  and  imported  1^-  A;  M  imported  being  equal  to 
^  A ;  and  the  country  will  have  for  consumption  A  +  M. 
Now  remove  one  half  of  the  population  from  agriculture  to 
the  mechanical  and  manufacturing  arts.  The  half  who  are 
left  can  still  produce  1  A,  or  enough  agricultural  products 
for  the  whole  population  ;  and  the  other  half  can  produce  M 
by  a  double  effort.  There  will  then  be  for  consumption 
A  -\-  M,  notwithstanding  the  double   effort.      But  suppose 


12.  REVIEW   OF    BASTIAT's   SOPHISMS   OF  PROTECTION. 

the  required  effort  not  double,  but  1|-.  The  product  will 
then  be  A  4~  I  ^i-  The  whole  population,  both  agricultural 
and  mechanical  and  manufacturing,  will  then  have  one  third 
more  of  M  under  protection  than  under  free  trade,  even  if  the 
effort  necessary  be  50  per  cent  greater  to  produce  M.  It  the 
effort  (measured  by  labor  and  abstinence)  be  the  same,  then 
the  product  under  protection  will  be  A  +  2  M. 

The  mechanical  and  manufacturing  arts  then  which  are 
introduced  under  a  duty  of  50  per  cent  in  such  circum- 
stances, will  at  once  give  the  whole  country  one  third  more  of 
their  products  than  can  be  had  under  free  trade  ;  and,  as  skill 
increases,  they  will  give  more  and  more  ;  and  their  shill  will 
react  upon  agriculture,  rendering  its  processes  more  effectual, 
and  enabling  a  still  greater  withdrawal  of  men  from  agricul- 
ture to  the  arts.  And  the  home  market  will  be  alwaj's  safe 
against  war  and  against  excessive  foreign  crops ;  and,  more- 
over, it  will  grow  step  by  step  with  the  population,  which  the 
foreign  market  never  can. 

M.  Bastiat  makes  a  great  friend  of  Nature :  but  it  is  not 
against  Nature  that  the  American  protectionist  raises  his  bul- 
warks. He  imports  many  tropical  products  free  of  duty,  but 
he  intrenches  against  the  foreign  skill  which  is  not  natural 
but  purely  artificial,  and  which  is  speedily  overtaken  by  our 
own  ;  and  he  intrenches  against  the  lower  wages  current 
abroad,  which  we  do  not  wish  to  imitate  here.  In  spite  of  a 
50  per  cent  duty,  the  whole  country  is  richer  immediately,  and 
gains  more  and  more  as  skill  is  acquired. 

M.  Bastiat  says  that  we  call  the  free  traders  theorists,  and 
he  retorts  the  accusation ;  but  he  mistakes  us.  We  do  not 
complain  of  them  for  being  theorists,  but  for  being  bad  the- 
orists, blundering  theorists,  theorists  who  use  arguments  in 
every  case  which  are  only  applicable  in  one  of  all  possible 
cases,  to  wit,  in  the  case  where  the  whole  population  can  be 
fully  occupied  in  those  industries  in  which  it  has  an  advan- 
tage, and  where,  aZso,  their  whole  surplus  can  find  steady, 
sure,  uninterrupted  markets.  In  this  very  exceptional  case, 
to  buy  in  the  cheapest  market  is  best  in  a  purely  financial 
aspect.     Their  proposition  is  not  universal,  not  one  of  even 


REVIEW   OP   BASTIAT'S   SOPHISMS   OP  PROTECTION.  13 

frequent  application.  To  argue  from  it  as  if  it  were  a  uni- 
versal proposition,  as  the  free  traders  do,  is  to  violate  one  of 
the  fundamental  maxims  of  logic. 

Chapter    V,  — "  Our    Productions    are    overloaded   with 

Taxes." 

Here  is  more  bad  theory.  We  are  taxed  heavily,  he  sa3^s. 
How  absurd,  then,  to  add  another  tax  which  makes  France 
pay  twelve  francs  for  iron  which  it  can  get  from  England  for 
eight.  The  blunder  here  consists  in  not  perceiving  that, 
although  the  extra  price  of  iron  may  in  a  certain  sense  be 
called  a  tax,  yet  it  is  of  an  entirely  different  nature  from  the 
other  things  called  by  the  same  name.  Suppose,  for  instance, 
that  France  is  using  2,000,000  of  tons  of  iron  produced  in 
France  and  costing  twelve  dollars  a  ton.  Here  are  124,000,000 
of  products  which  are  paid  for  by  other  $24,000,000  of  various 
French  products.  The  result  is  commodities  worth  $48,000,000, 
every  dollar  of  which  is  net  individual  income  to  some  French 
citizen,  as  has  been  well  shown  by  J.  B.  Say.  The  totality 
of  French  industries  is  in  equilibrium.  Each  employs  all  the 
capital  and  all  the  industry  it  can,  and  carries  along  its  nor- 
mal surplus  stock.  The  expansion  of  each  industry,  both  as 
to  capital  and  quantity  of  labor  employed,  is  limited  by  the 
extent  of  the  market.  Now  open  the  ports  and  bring  in  the 
2,000,000  tons  of  English  iron  at  eight  dollars.  The  imme- 
diate effect  upon  the  consumers  of  iron  is  that  they  save 
$8,000,000 :  but  the  general  demand  for  French  products  is 
diminished  $32,000,000.  The  importation  of  iron  selling  for 
$16,000,000  provokes  a  French  production  of  $16,000,000. 
The  home  production  of  the  iron,  on  the  contrary,  gave  a  total 
home  product  of  $48,000,000,  —  a  difference  of  $32,000,000. 
It  is  true  that  the  community  saves  $8,000,000  in  the  price  of 
the  iron,  but  on  the  other  hand  its  aggregate  ability  to  con- 
sume is  reduced  $32,000,000;  and  under  these  circumstances 
it  ma}'-  well  happen  that  its  ability  to  consume  imported  iron 
at  eight  dollars  will  be  less  than  its  ability  to  consume  home- 
made iron  at  twelve  dollars.  The  free-traders  call  the  sums 
collected  to  pay  the  interest  on  the  national  debt  and  the  ex- 


14  REVIEW   OF  BASTIAT's   SOPHISMS   OP   PROTECTION. 

penses  of  government  taxes,  and  they  call  the  extra  price 
(when  there  is  an  extra  price) 'paid  for  home-made  products 
also  taxes.  But  they  are  entirely  different;  almost  as  different 
as  the  files  of  a  carpenter  and  the  files  of  a  regiment.  The  tax 
arising  out  of  protective  laws,  in  the  instance  under  examina- 
tion, takes  from  the  French  consumers  four  dollars  a  ton ; 
but  it  gives  them  twelve  :  the  net  result  is  that  they  are 
better  off  by  eight,  or  twice  the  amount  of  the  so-called  tax. 
This  flows  inevitably  from  Say's  proposition  that  the  whole 
price  of  everything  produced  in  a  country  is  net  individual 
income  to  some  citizen  of  that  country.  If  the  free-traders 
would  make  the  other  "  taxes  "  produce  a  similar  result,  we 
would  all  clamor  for  more  taxes. 

Chapter  VI.  is  called  "Balance  of  Trade."  He  begins  as 
follows :  — 

"  Our  adversaries  have  adopted  a  system  of  tactics  which  embar- 
rasses us  not  a  little.  Do  we  prove  our  doctrine  ?  They  admit  the 
truth  of  it  in  the  most  respectful  manner.  Do  we  attack  their  princi- 
ples ?  They  abandon  them  with  the  best  possible  grace.  They  only 
ask  that  our  doctrine,  which  they  acknowledge  to  be  true,  should  be 
confined  to  books ;  and  that  their  principles,  which  they  allow  to  be 
false,  should  be  established  in  practice.  If  we  will  give  up  to  them 
the  regulation  of  our  tariffs,  they  will  leave  us  triumphant  in  the  do- 
main of  theory." 

M.  Bastiat  was  in  error  as  to  the  attitude  of  protectionists 
generally.  They  do  not  admit  that  the  theory  of  the  free- 
traders is  correct,  nor  their  own  practice  wrong  ;  but  when 
worried  by  much  beating  of  gongs — represented  to  be  logical 
instruments  —  and  by  much  assumption  of  superiority  in 
reasoning,  they  have  often  been  inclined  to  reply  :  "  You 
puzzle  us  with  sophistical  riddles.  We  feel  them  to  be 
wrong,  but  have  not  the  time,  perhaps  not  the  ability,  to 
show  wherein  they  are  wrong.  We  have  seen  your  own 
chiefs  perplexed  with  the  fallacy  of  Achilles  and  the  tortoise, 
and  some  of  them  declaring  k  to  be  insoluble,  —  that  being  an 
argument  known  to  be  erroneous,  but  one  of  which  no  one 


REVIEW   OF   BASTIAT's  SOPHISMS  OF  PROTECTION.  15 

has  ever  yet  given  a  wholly  satisfactory  explanation.  Now, 
we  feel  that  your  arguments  are  sophistical ;  we  are  so  sure 
of  it  that  we  are  ready  to  risk  our  fortunes  upon  the  belief. 
We  are  not  able  to  talk  you  down,  and  are  willing  you  should 
theorize  to  your  hearts'  content,  so  long  as  you  will  confine 
yourselves  to  theory."  Such  is  the  feeling  of  many.  It  is 
not  the  feeling  of  the  writer.  It  is  as  absurd  as  anything 
well  can  be  to  say,  "  So  and  so  may  be  very  well  in  theory, 
but  it  will  not  do  in  practice."  If  it  will  not  do  in  practice, 
it  most  assuredly  is  not  good  in  theory.  It  may  be  good  in 
pseudo-theory ;  but  true  theory  must  explain  practice,  or  be 
in  accord  with  it.  Sound  theory  and  sound  practice  are 
Siamese  twins.  As  was  said  before,  we  do  not,  as  you  have 
the  presumption  to  say,  object  to  you  as  theorists :  we  only 
object  to  you  as  bad  theorists. 

M.  Bastiat  gives  us  examples  in  which  every  merchant  will 
find  errors ;  upon  which,  however,  it  is  not  worth  while  to 
expend  time  and  patience,  —  the  main  object  of  the  chap- 
ter being  to  show,  what  everybody  knew  before,  namely, 
that  an  unusually  successful  voyage  brings  into  a  country  a 
much  larger  value  than  it  takes  out.  But  there  are  also  very 
unsuccessful  voyages,  which  bring  in  much  less  than  they 
take  out ;  and  everybody  who  knows  anything  of  commerce 
is  aware  that  the  average  result  is  cost,  expenses,  —  and  a 
profit  not  greater  than  what  is  usual  in  other  kinds  of  busi- 
ness. This  is  fact ;  and  this  also  is  the  result  which  the 
reasoning  of  all  respectable  economists,  from  Adam  Smith 
down,  points  out  as  what  must  necessarily  be  fact.  The 
balance  of  trade  in  our  days  is  so  complicated  by  the  transfer 
of  securities,  and  by  the  remittances  of  the  profits  upon 
foreign  investments,  that  no  certain  conclusion  can  be  drawn 
from  custom-house  statistics ;  but  for  all  that,  an  exportation 
of  treasure,  exceeding  greatly  the  product  of  the  country, 
indicates  an  adverse  balance  of  trade,  which  cannot  exi§t 
many  years  without  financial  convulsion. 

Chapter  VII.  is  entitled  "  Petition  from  the  Manufacturers 
of    Candles,    Wax-lights,    Lamps,    Chandeliers,    Reflectors, 


16  REVIEW   OP   BASTIAT'S   SOPHISMS   OP   PROTECTION. 

Snuffers,  Extinguishers ;  and  from  the  Producers  of  Tallow, 
Oil,  Resin,  Alcohol,  and  generally  of  Everything  used  for 
Lights." 

This  is  a  petition  against  sunshine,  and  regarded  as  per- 
siflage, it  is  excellent.  Considered  as  an  economical  argu- 
ment, it  can  impose  upon  no  one  who  has  the  least  com- 
mon-sense, or  the  least  logic,  which  is  only  common  sense 
put  into  a  formula.  As  the  sun  does  not  give  us  light, 
through  the  twenty-four  hours,  artificial  light  must  be  had 
and  can  be  had  only  through  labor.  If  the  circumstances 
are  such  that  by  procuring  it  from  abroad  the  gross  annual 
product  is  greater  than  it  is  by  producing  it  at  home,  then, 
financially  considered,  it  is  better  to  procure  it  from  abroad. 
But  this  case  seldom  occurs,  as  has  already  been  sufficiently 
shown. 

Chapter  VIII.  is  entitled  "  Discriminating  Duties." 
This  is  a  particular  case,  made  up  with  just  such  circum- 
stances as  might  lead  a  poor  wine-grower  to  draw  from  it 
illegitimately  an  universal  conclusion.  As  rhetoric,  intended 
to  deceive,  it  is  very  good.  It  is  entirely  unworthy  of  one 
who  is  seriously  investigating  national  interests. 

Chapter  IX.  is  entitled  "  Wonderful  Discovery." 
In  this,  M.  Bastiat  discovers  that  a  railroad  has  been  made 
between  Paris  and  Brussels  in  order  to  obviate  or  overcome 
natural  obstacles  to  trade,  but  that  the  duty  on  goods  be- 
tween the  two  places  was  an  artificial  obstacle,  and  conse- 
quently absurd.  The  answer  is,  that  the  railroad  was  built 
with  the  intention  of  removing  obstacles  from  desiralJle  and 
beneficent  communication.  It  was  not  built  to  facilitate  the 
passage  of  foreign  soldiers  to  Paris,  nor  to  facilitate  the 
invasion  of  the  markets  of  France  by  produce  that  is  not 
desirable.  Whether  the  introduction  of  the  produce  be 
desirable  or  not,  must  be  determined  b}'-  other  reasons  than 
the  fact  that  a  railroad  exists  by  which  it  can  be  conveyed. 
Distance  is  an  obstacle  to  every  sort  of  communication. 
That  we  take  measures  to  overcome  the  obstacle  does  not 


REVIEW   OP   BASTIAT'S   SOPHISMS   OF   PROTECTION.  17 

prove  that  every  sort  of  communication  is  productive  of 
opulence. 

M.  Bastiat  says :  — 

"  Frankly,  is  it  not  humiliating  to  the  nineteenth  century  that  it 
should  be  destined  to  transmit  to  future  ages  the  example  of  such 
puerilities  seriously  and  gravely  practised  ?  " 

We  reply,  Frankljs  it  will  he  humiliating  to  the  nineteenth 
century  to  have  to  transmit  to  future  ages  Bastiat's  puerilities 
in  reasoning  as  examples  of  what  could  be  thought  worthy  of 
being  presented  to  France,  England,  and  the  United  States 
by  a  person  claiming  to  be,  and  by  many  even  highly  edu- 
cated persons  held  out  to  be,  an  eminent  logician. 

Chapter  X.,  entitled  "  Reciprocity,"  is  in  the  same  vein. 
A  swamp,  a  bog,  a  rut,  a  steep  hill,  stormy  oceans,  etc.  are 
veritable  protective  tariifs.  By  the  railroad,  the  steamship, 
etc.  we  do  all  we  can  to  remove  the  other  obstacles  ;  but  the 
artificial  obstacle,  which  it  will  cost  nothing  to  remove,  we 
suffer  to  remain.  Why  do  we  suffer  it  to  remain  ?  Because 
we  believe  that  this  particular  obstacle  to  intercourse  is  not 
an  obstacle,  but  an  aid,  to  acquiring  opulence.  Whether  it 
is  or  is  not  so  cannot  be  determined  by  giving  it  the  same 
name,  putting  it  in  the  same  class,  with  other  things  which 
we  recognize  as  pernicious.  If  there  were  a  tunnel  formed 
between  England  and  France,  it  would  not  be  absurd  to  take 
such  measures  as  would  prevent  its  being  used  for  the  pas- 
sage of  hostile  forces.  When  we  build  railroads  and  steam- 
ships, we  do  not  logically  bind  ourselves  to  allow  them  to  be 
used  for  every  conceivable  purpose,  whether  useful  or  per- 
nicious ;  and  the  fact  that  the  railroad  or  the  steamship  may 
be  made  to  subserve  a  certain  purpose,  affords  no  ground  for 
inferring  that  such  purpose  is  or  is  not  desirable.  This  must 
be  ascertained  by  quite  another  sort  of  logic.  Opium  and 
rum,  the  smallpox  and  the  yellow  fever,  are  not  necessarily 
beneficial  because  distributed  by  steamships  and  railroads. 

Chapter  XL  is  entitled  "  Absolute  Prices."     He  says  :  — 

3 


18  REVIEW   OF   BASTIAT's   SOPHISMS    OF   PROTECTION. 

"  If  we  wish  to  judge  between  freedom  of  trade  and  protection,  to 
calculate  the  probable  effect  of  any  political  phenomenon,  we  should 
notice  how  far  its  influence  tends  to  the  production  of  abundance  or 
scarcity.  We  must  beware  of  trusting  to  absolute  prices ;  it  would 
lead  to  inextricable  confusion." 

He  assumes  throughout  the  chapter  that  protection  pro- 
duces scarcity,  and  free-trade  abundance.  Cases  might  exist 
where  it  would  do  so.  Generally  it  does  the  reverse,  and  it 
is  notabl}''  so  in  the  United  States.  Why  is  this  ?  Because, 
when  the  population  is  fully  occupied,  much  is  produced  ; 
there  is  much  to  divide.  When  a  considerable  proportion  is 
unoccupied,  little  comparatively  is  produced  ;  there  is  less  to 
divide.  We  saw  the  latter  from  1873  to  1879  :  wages  and 
profits  were  both  low.  We  see  the  former  now  in  1881 : 
the  people  are  more  fully  occupied,  and  both  wages  and 
profits  are  higher.  But  the  tariff  also  is  higher.  The 
difference  has  arisen  from  the  abandonment  in  1873  of  the 
active  formation  of  instruments,  and  from  the  resumption  of 
the  movement  in  1880.  But  the  larger  production  is  con- 
comitant with  high  prices,  and  the  smaller  production  was 
concomitant  with  low  prices.  Cheapness,  then,  may  exist 
without  abundance,  and  abundance  may  exist  without  cheap- 
ness, however  much  this  may  astonish  the  free-trader. 

Chapter  XII.  is  entitled,  "  Does  Protection  raise  the  Rate 
of  Wages  ?  " 

M.  Bastiat  says  to  the  working-man:  — 

"  But  justice,  &imT[)\Q  justice,  —  nobody  thinks  of  rendering  you  this. 
For  would  it  not  be  just  that  after  a  long  day's  labor,  when  you  have 
received  your  little  wages,  you  should  be  permitted  to  exchange  them 
for  the  largest  possible  sura  of  comforts  that  you  can  obtain  voluntarily 
from  any  man  whatsoever  upon  the  face  of  the  earth?" 

M.  Bastiat  put  himself  forward  as  a  logician,  and  also  as  a 
sincere  expositor  of  truth.,  He  desired  and  intended,  so  he 
implied,  to  teach  the  truth,  the  whole  truths  and  nothing  but 
the  truth  ;  and  yet  we  here  have  him  commencing  his  argu- 
ment from  the  middle  of  the  economical  fact  he  was  examin- 


REVIEW   OF   BASTIAT's   SOPHISMS   OF   PROTECTION.  19 

ing.  He  commences  with  the  poor  laborer  when  he  has  got 
his  little  wages :  then,  truly,  it  would  be  well  for  him  to  get 
as  much  in  exchange  for  them  as  possible.  But  M.  Bastiat 
carefully  keeps  out  of  sight  that  it  is  the  protective  policy 
which  has  given  the  man  his  employment,  and  consequently 
his  wages.  M.  Bastiat  may  have  believed  that  the  man 
would  get  as  good  or  better  employment  under  a  regime  of 
free-trade  ;  but  if  so,  that  was  the  point  at  issue.  To  assume 
it  would  seem  to  show  M.  Bastiat  to  have  been  more  anxious 
to  gain  his  point  than  to  ascertain  the  truth. 
M.  Bastiat  continues  : — 

"Is  it  true  that  protection,  which  avowedly  raises  prices,  and  thus 
injures  you,  raises  proportionately  the  rate  of  wages  ? " 

Here  is  the  same  rhetorical  trick  repeated.  It  is  assumed 
that  the  man  will  get  work  under  free  trade  the  same  as 
under  a  protective  policy.  To  assume  this  is  to  take  the 
whole  free -trade  theory  for  granted,  without  any  proof  or 
argument.  M.  Bastiat,  however,  to  give  everyone  his  due, 
seems  really  to  believe  he  is  right ;  and  he  sometimes  does 
argue  the  question  effectively  from  the  premises  which  he 
assumes.  These,  however  (unfortunately  for  free-trade  phil- 
osophy), are  simple  blunders.  They  are  venerable  blunders, 
it  is  true,  as  they  can  claim  the  respectable  paternity  of 
Adam  Smith  more  than  a  hundred  years  ago  ;  but  they  are 
very  evident  blunders  for  all  that.  We  may  borrow  here 
Quinctilian's  charitable  remark  about  Homer,  and  say,  "  Some- 
times the  good  Adam  Smith  nods."  Unfortunately,  he  nod- 
ded at  a  very  important  point ;  and  he  did  the  sleeping  scene 
so  naturally  and  effectively  in  his  pages  that  every  free- 
trade  economist  for  a  century  and  over  has  fallen  into  a 
slumber  just  where  he  did. 

Bastiat  says  : — 

"  The  rate  of  wages  depends  upon  the  proportion  which  the  supply 
of  labor  bears  to  the  demand." 

I 

Very  true.     He  continues  thus  : — 


20  REVIEW   OF   BASTIAT's   SOPHISMS   OP   PROTECTION. 

"  On  what  depends  tlie  demand  for  labor  ?  On  the  quantity  of  dis- 
posable national  capital.  And  the  law  which  says  '  Such  or  such  an 
article  shall  be  limited  to  home  production,  and  no  longer  imported 
from  foreign  countries,'  can  it  in  any  way  increase  that  capital  ?  Not 
in  the  least.  The  law  may  withdraw  it  from  one  course,  and  transfer 
it  to  another ;  but  cannot  increase  it  one  penny.  Then  it  cannot  in- 
crease the  demand  for  labor." 

This  is  the  fundamental  position  of  the  free  traders.  It  was 
taken  by  Adam  Smith  more  tlian  a  hundred  years  ago,  was 
repeated  by  Mr.  John  Stuart  Mill  some  thirty  years  ago, 
again  repeated  by  M.  Bastiat,  and  is  now  presented  to  the 
American  people  by  the  Free  Trade  League  of  New  York 
in  the  translation  of  M.  Bastiat's  "  Sophisms  of  Protection  " 
now  under  review.  If  this  position  can  be  maintained,  the 
free-trade  doctrine  stands.  If  it  cannot  be  maintained,  the 
free-trade  doctrine  falls.  It  has  been  already  examined  as 
presented  by  Adam  Smith,  and  again  examined  as  presented 
by  Mr.  Mill.  Let  us  now  examine  it  as  put  forward  by  M. 
Bastiat.  He,  of  course,  uses  the  word  "  capital "  in  the 
Frenph  sense,  as  signifying  everything  which  can  be  used  to 
assist  or  support  labor ;  and  his  proposition  is  therefore 
somewhat  broader  than  that  of  the  English  authors,  who 
limited  the  words  to  the  funds  set  apart  for  the  support  of 
productive  labor. 

To  get  at  the  bottom  of  this  question,  we  must  see  what 
is  the  normal  condition  of  an  industrial  community.  Evid- 
ently it  must  be  possessed  of  certain  industries.  A,  B,  C, 
D,  etc.  Let  us  examine  industry  A.  It  was  commenced  for 
the  sake  of  profit.  The  same  motive  led  to  its  increase  con- 
tinually, so  long  as  the  satisfactory  profit  was  attainable  ; 
but,  finally,  it  over-ran  the  market,  as  was  evidenced  by 
a  portion  of  its  products  remaining  unsold  (or  a  portion  of 
its  materials  remaining  unconverted  into  finished  products) 
by  reason  of  a  lack  of  demand.  The  producers  then  find  a 
portion  of  their  capital  locked  up,  either  in  finished  products 
or  in  unconverted  material,  or  in  both,  and  are  compelled  to 
cease  augmenting  their  production.  Some  stock  they  find  it, 
upon  the  whole,  convenient  to  carry  rather  than  be  unpre- 


REVIEW   OF   BASTIAT's   SOPHISMS    OP   PROTECTION.  21 

• 

pared  for  fluctuations  in  the  demand  ;  and  they  naturally 
carry  as  large  a  stock  as  they  can  without  reducing  profits 
below  the  point  which  satisfies  the  existing  "  effective  de- 
mand for  accumulation."  Industry  A,  then,  normally  car- 
ries on  a  certain  stock  of  products,  and  this  stock  locks  up  a 
portion  of  the  capital  employed  in  the  industry.  This  stock 
is  unemployed  capital,  and  is  recognized  as  such  by  Mr.  John 
Stuart  Mill,  who,  however,  failed  to  observe  the  significance 
of  the  fact,  or  its  important  bearing  upon  economical  reason- 
ing. What  is  true  of  industry  A  is  true  of  B,  C,  D,  and 
all  the  others  acquired  by  the  community,  which  thus  is  seen 
to  contain  a  multitude  of  industries,  whose  aggregate  stocks 
of  finished  products  and  materials  compose  the  aggregate 
unemployed  capital  of  the  communit}^  It  is  the  function  of 
this  unemployed  capital  to  regulate  the  movement  of  in- 
dustry. When  the  stocks  increase,  they  enforce  a  slower 
movement ;  when  they  are  diminished,  prices  rise,  and  the 
industrial  movement  is  stimulated  to  greater  activity.  We 
come,  then,  inevitably  to  the  conclusion  that  in  an  industrial 
community  the  increase  of  industry  is  not  limited  by  capital, 
but  that  the  increase  of  both  industry  and  capital  is  limited 
by  the  "  field  of  employment." 

But  what  limits  the  field  of  employment?  Evidently,  the 
limits  which  exist  to  effective  demand.  Let  us  confine  our 
attention  to  a  single  industry,  say  the  shoe  manufacture. 
The  desire  of  men  for  shoes  is  in  itself  limited.  If  they 
could  be  had  without  effort  or  sacrifice,  a  certain  number  of 
human  beings  would  use  only  a  certain  number  of  shoes. 
Interpose  a  difficulty  of  attainment,  the  necessity  for  effort 
or  sacrifice,  and  less  will  be  used.  There  is,  then,  a  limit  to 
the  shoe  manufacture,  even  in  a  community  where  every 
person  could  find  a  sale  for  his  labor  if  he  desired  to  find 
one  ;  and  the  field  is  narrowed  still  further  if  a  portion  of 
the  community  is  not  able  to  find  employment.  Evidently, 
only  a  certain  number  of  shoes  can  be  profitably  made  at 
any  cost  you  choose  to  fix  upon.  Reduce  profits  ever  so 
low,  and  still  the  manufacture  has  its  limits.  Increase  now 
the  aggregate  means  of  the  community  for  the  purchase  of 


22  REVIEW   OF   BASTIAT'S   SOPHISMS   OP   PROTECTION. 

shoes,  whether  by  increasing  the  popuhation  or  by  increasing 
the  proportion  of  the  population  Avhich  can  find  a  sale  for  its 
labor,  and  the  demand  for  shoes  will  increase,  their  exchange- 
able value  will  rise,  the  profits  of  the  manufacture  will 
augment,  and  it  will  be  enlarged  to  meet  the  changed  con- 
ditions. It  will  find  its  new  limits  in  the  production  which 
again  reduces  the  exchangeable  value  of  shoes  to  that  point 
where  the  profits  fall  to  the  rate  usual  in  the  community. 
The  moment  profits  are  such  as  to  enable  the  manufacturers 
to  save,  and  add  to  their  capital  an  annual  percentage, 
greater  than  that  by  which  the  population  increases,  they 
will  increase  their  production  faster  than  the  population 
increases  ;  when  profits  are  less,  they  will  allow  the  popu- 
lation to  gain  upon  the  production.  There  is,  evidently,  a 
limit  to  the  field  of  employment  open  to  this  industry.  It 
will  be  wider  under  certain  circumstances,  narrower  under 
others.  But  it  is  this  limit, —  the  limit  of  the  field  of  employ- 
ment,—  which  regulates  both  the  quantity  of  labor  and  the 
quantity  of  capital  wliich  will  be  employed  in  it.  But  what  is 
true  of  shoes  is  true  of  every  other  commodity,  and  of  every 
service  known  to  the  community.  It  would  seem,  then,  that 
the  normal  condition  of  an  improving  community  was  this. 
Skill,  dexterity,  judgment,  machinery  are  constantly  dimin- 
ishing the  sacrifice  at  which  men  can  procure  the  commodities 
produced  by  its  industries ;  but  they  are  also  constantly  in- 
creasing the  mass  of  unemployed  capital,  and  forcing  it  to 
search  for  new  commodities  and  new  services,  which  may 
tempt  the  capitalists,  great  and  small,  to  increase  their  con- 
sumption, so  as  to  keep  pace  with  the  increasing  capacity  for 
production.  Each  new  commodity,  convenience,  and  amuse- 
ment furnishes  a  new  market  for  the  existing  industries,  and 
enlarges  the  effective  demand.  The  field  of  employment  is 
increased,  the  people  are  morp  fully  occupied,  the  gross 
annual  product  is  augmented,  and  the  purposes  to  which  an 
additional  fixed  and  floating  capital  can  be  applied  are  mul- 
tiplied. This  is  a  society  in  which  the  introduction  of  a  new 
industry  finds  ample  unemployed  capital  for  its  development, 
and  in  which  its  products  immediately  enlarge  the  market 


REVIEW   OF   BASTIAT'S    SOPHISMS   OF   PROTECTION.  23 

for  the  products  of  the  old  industries,  and  enable  them  to 
increase  their  production  and  the  capital  emploj'ed  by  them. 

The  normal  condition  of  the  society  imagined  by  Adam 
Smith,  and  by  John  Stuart  Mill  in  his  first  volume,  and  by 
Bastiat,  is  one  where  the  field  of  employment  is  checked  by 
the  want  of  capital.  Deductive  reasoning  leads  us  to  the 
conviction  that  they  put  the  cart  before  the  horse  ;  to  the 
conviction  that,  on  the  contrar}',  it  is  capital  which  is  limited 
by  the  limitation  of  the  field  of  employment.  Introduce  the 
new  industry,  and  the  capital  necessary  for  its  develoj)ment 
will  be  found  waiting  for  the  work,  and  will  be  rapidly  repro- 
duced and  more  than  reproduced  by  the  augmented  activity 
of  the  previously  acquired  industries.  There  will  be  a  de- 
mand for  more  labor,  and  the  increased  annual  product  will 
reward  the  labor  with  higher  wages. 

Pure  reasoning  would  have  led  to  the  conclusion  that  in  a 
community  possessed  of  a  considerable  variety,  of  industries 
there  must  be  an  enormous  aggregate  of  commodities  unsold 
or  unconverted,  or,  in  other  words,  of  unemploj^ed  capital ; 
and  an  inquiry  in  Wall  Street  or  State  Street  would  have  re- 
vealed that  such  was  the  fact.  The  free  traders  missed  the 
fact,  because  they  did  not  stop  to  reason,  but  preferred  to 
jump  at  conclusions. 

M.  Bastiat's  assertion,  then,  that  a  protective  law,  which 
says  such  or  such  an  article  shall  be  limited  to  home  produc- 
tion, cannot  increase  disposable  capital  a  single  penny  is  simply 
a  blunder.  It  can  increase  it  in  the  United  States  many  hun- 
dred millions  of  dollars  a  year.  The  surplus  stocks  of  the 
existing  industries  will  immediately  supply  the  capital  re- 
quired, and  will  be  replaced  in  an  exceedingly  short  time  by 
the  stimulated  activity  of  those  industries;  and,  meanwhile, 
the  people  will  have  had  paid  to  them  for  labor  about  twice  the 
amount  of  capital  invested  in  the  new  industry.  Take  the 
following  as  an  illustration.  Let  us  suppose  that  a  country 
exists  (call  it,  if  you  please,  the  United  States)  where  the 
annual  product  is  six  thousand  millions  of  dollars,  and  the 
normal  surplus  stock  of  commodities  is  equal  to  a  consump- 
tion of  sixty  days,  —  a  value  of  about  one  thousand  millions. 


24         REVIEW  OP  castiat's  sophisms  of  protection. 

We  will  suppose  that  it  uses  largely  of  woollen  goods  pro- 
cured from  abroad.  The  people,  looking  round,  perceive  that 
the  climate  is  in  no  way  unfavorable  to  the  woollen  industry ; 
that  they  themselves  are  by  no  means  wanting  in  general 
aptitude  to  mechanical  and  manufacturing  industries ;  that 
there  is  every  reason  to  suppose  the  requisite  skill  can  be 
attained  ;  and  that  well-directed  efforts  to  import  the  industry 
will  end  in  our  producing,  here,  close  at  hand,  as  good  or 
better  cloths  at  a  somewhat  lower  cost  of  labor  and  abstinence 
than  they  cost  when  imported  from  abroad.  Accordingly  the 
people  say,  let  a  law  be  passed  giving  a  protection  of  say  fifty 
per  cent  to  woollens.  The  law  is  passed,  and  here  and  there 
all  over  the  country  w^oollen  mills  are  commenced  by  the 
combined  capital  of  a  multitude  of  individuals.  Gradually, 
as  the  mills  are  built,  they  pay  in  their  subscriptions.  Some 
draw  out  of  the  savings  banks,  which  hold  over  a  thousand 
millions  ;  some  have  money  with  other  banks  or  bankers,  the 
deposits  with  whom  exceed  another  thousand  millions ;  some 
sell  stocks  or  property.  Twenty  millions  a  month  over  the 
whole  country  will  not  make  a  ripple  in  the  money  market. 
Suppose,  then,  the  operations  are  to  the  extent  of  twenty 
millions  a  month.  As  soon  as  gathered  in  they  are  paid  out 
for  labor  and  spent  by  labor  in  buying  commodities.  The 
producers  of  commodities  now  find  their  stocks  diminishing, 
—  that  is,  a  part  of  their  unemployed  capital  is  set  free.  They 
will  know  this  if  the  free-trade  jihilosophers  do  not,  and  they 
will  employ  more  labor  to  meet  the  increased  demand  for 
commodities.  They  will  be  able  to  pay  out  twenty  millions 
a  month  more  for  labor,  and  this  will  bring  about  an  addi- 
tional production  of  more  than  forty  millions,  —  more  than 
sufficient  to  pay  for  the  additional  labor  and  the  construction 
of  the  woollen  mills  besides.  This  is  warranted  by  the  facts 
given  in  the  United  States  Census  for  1870,  which  showed 
that  the  mechanical  and  manufacturing  industries  in  the 
United  States  added  $1,744,000,000  to  the  value  of  the  mate- 
rial used,  and  that  of  this  $776,000,000  went  to  labor.  It 
would  seem,  then,  that  $240,000,000  a  year  would  be  invested 
in  woollen  mills  iu  the  year  without  diminishing  the  floating 


REVIEW   OF   BASTIAT'S   SOPHISMS    OF   PROTECTION.  25 

capital  of  the  country  a  cent.  At  the  end  of  the  year  the 
country  will  have  woollen  mills  which  cost  $2-10,000,000  as 
an  addition  to  its  fixed  capital,  and  the  laboring  classes  will 
have  had  $480,000,000  additional  to  spend.  The  investors 
in  mills  will  have  withdrawn  $240,000,000  from  the  monied 
reserves,  but  the  master  mechanics  and  manufacturers  will 
have  added  an  equal  or  somewhat  larger  amount.  The  nation 
altogether  \fill  be  richer  by  $240,000,000  in  the  shape  of 
woollen  mills,  although  it  has  had  and  spent  $480,000,000 
more  within  the  year ;  and  this  is  the  result  of  giving  fuller 
occupation  to  the  people.  More  commodities  are  made  and 
there  are  more  consumed. 

This  is  the  effect  of  the  law  which  Bastiat  saj's  cannot 
add  a  single  cent  to  the  wages  of  labor.  Let  business  men, 
who  understand  accounts,  examine  the  above  theory  of  the 
protectionists,  and  compare  it  with  the  theory  of  the  free- 
traders, and  then  decide  which  represents  and  explains  the 
actual  course  of  financial  affairs  as  they  go  on  continually 
before  our  eyes,  and  which  ought  to  be  taught  to  young  men 
who  are  preparing  for  practical  life. 

Bastiat  says  that  "  when  a  nation  isolates  itself  by  the  pro- 
hibitive sj'stem,  its  number  of  industrial  pursuits  is  certainly 
multiplied,  but  their  importance  is  diminished.  In  propor- 
tion to  their  number  they  become  less  productive, /or  the  same 
capital  and  same  skill  are  obliged  to  meet  a  greater  number 
of  difficulties.  The  fixed  capital  absorbs  a  greater  part  of 
the  circulating  capital ;  that  is  to  say,  a  greater  part  of  the 
funds  destined  to  the  payment  of  wages. 

Was  this  a  man  capable  of  teaching  the  people  of  the  United 
States?  " /so toe  "  is  a  good  piece  of  rhetoric.  The  abomi- 
nable, absurd,  suicidal,  ridiculous,  impoverishing  tariff  of  the 
United  States  has  so  "isolated"  the  nation  that  it  sends 
abroad  for  sale  an  annual  value  of  about  nine  hundred  mil- 
lions, and  keeps  five  or  six  times  as  much  at  home.  It  is  so 
poor  that  its  average  annual  individual  income  exceeds  that 
of  any  other  country  in  the  world,  not  even  excepting  Great 
Britain.     It  has  on  its  hands  no  starving  Ireland,  no  starving 

Orissa,  no  starving  Behar ;  nor  would  it  have  were  those 

4 


26  REVIEW   OF   BASTIAT's   SOPHISMS    OP   PROTECTION. 

countries  transferred  to  its  dominion.  For  "  starving  "  would 
then  have  to  be  substituted  in  every  case  the  words  "flour- 
ishing," "contented,"  "prosperous;"  for  they  would  be 
protected  from  hostile  industries  as  much  as  from  hostile 
armies. 

M.  Bastiat  imagined  that  a  new  industry  would  be  estab- 
lished by  capital  drawn  from  the  old  industries,  which  would 
be  thus  cramped  and  diminished,  whereas  the  new  industry 
would  be  established  and  equipped  by  capital  already  existing, 
and  replaced  during  the  period  of  its  introduction  by  labor 
which  would  otherwise  have  been  unemplo3'ed ;  and  its  prod- 
ucts, when  established,  constitute  an  additional  market  for 
the  products  of  the  old  industries,  enabling  them  all  to  increase 
their  production. 

Chapter  XIII.  is  called  "Theory  —  Practice." 
In  this  chapter  M.  Bastiat  claims  for  each  individual  the 
'■''free  disposition  of  his  own  property^ 

This  is  a  proposition  in  law  or  in  social  science.  It  has 
nothing  to  do  with  political  economy,  which  is  an  inquiry 
into  the  means  of  increasing  national  opulence.  If  it  were 
shown  that  protection  was  one  means,  it  would  be  no  answer 
to  say  that  protection  invaded  natural  rights.  Either  legal 
or  social  science  would  laugh  at  any  such  pretension.^  A  cer- 
tain society  has  come  to  the  belief  that  the  opulence  of  all 
and  each  of  its  members  will  be  promoted  by  a  regulation 
that  while  A  is  employed  by  B,  C,  D,  etc.,  he  shall  in  turn 
use  the  products  of  B,  C,  D,  etc.  A  does  not  like  the  regula- 
tion. His  particular  industry  is  such  that  B,  C,  D,  etc.,  must 
employ  him,  while  he  has  discovered  that  D's  product  can 
be  got  a  little  cheaper  outside  the  society.  A  would  like  to 
work  for  the  society  and  enjoy  all  the  advantages  of  their 
custom  ;  but  he  would  prefer  not  to  give  any  custom  in  re- 
turn. He  maintains  that  by  an  opposite  arrangement  the 
society  altogether  will  grow  rich.  B,  C,  D,  etc.,  reply  that  if 
the  industry  of  D  be  abolished,  D  will  have  to  be  supported 
by  the  rest ;  and  that  in  the  particular  circumstances  of  their 
society  it  is  vastly  cheaper  to  get  the  products  through  D  than 

1  See  note  1,  page  79. 


EEVIEW   OP   BASTIAT's   SOPHISMS   OF   PROTECTION.  27 

to  get  them  from  abroad  and  let  D  sit  idle.  "  But  D  is  a 
monopolist !  "  cries  A.  "  No  ;  "  reply  the  rest  of  the  alphabet, 
"  D  is  faithfully  working  in  his  special  field,  and  he  is  gaining 
skill  yearly.  It  is  our  will  that  his  field,  although  not  the  most 
fertile  the  society  possesses,  shall  be  cultivated.  We  believe 
that  in  this  Avay  we  shall  altogether  be  a  wealthier  society 
than  if  we  follow  A's  suggestion.  Let  A  convince  us  to  the 
contrar}-,  and  we  will  do  as  A  proposes  ;  but  calling  D  a  monop- 
olist does  not  seem  to  us  to  have  any  bearing  upon  the  cal- 
culation. It  is  simply  the  throwing  of  mud.  It  would  seem 
that  A's  arguments  must  be  weak  and  few,  if  he  finds  himself 
reduced  to  such  expedients."  "  But,"  says  A,  "  it  is  the  natural 
right  of  every  man  to  do  what  he  pleases  Avith  his  own  prop- 
erty." Again  reply  B,  C,  D,  etc.,  "This  is  not  the  question 
before  us.  The  question  is.  How  shall  we  all  enjoy  the  greatest 
abundance  ?  If  you  fly  away  from  the  question  we  shall  con- 
clude that  you  have  notliing  relevant  to  offer."  "  But,"  rejoins 
A,  "  political  economy  and  common  sense  tell  us  that  to  secure 
the  greatest  abundance  we  have  only  to  buy  in  the  cheapest 
market.  It  is  absurd  to  buy  of  D  at  four  dollars  what  you 
can  have  from  abroad  for  three  dollars."  "  This,"  say  B,  C,  D, 
etc.,  "  may  be  your  political  economy  and  your  common  sense  ; 
but  it  is  not  ours.  D  will  take  payment  in  that  which  we 
have  to  give  ;  he  pays  his  landlord,  his  butcher,  his  baker,  his 
tailor,  his  clergyman,  his  lawyer,  his  physician,  his  laborers, 
with  our  products,  or  with  money  which  is  expended  for  our 
products  ;  whereas,  the  foreign  producer  of  D's  commodity  can 
consume,  or  cause  to  be  consumed,  only  a  tenth  part  as  much 
of  our  products.  We  can,  therefore,  have  from  D  more  of 
his  products  than  we  can  have  from  D's  foreign  competitor, 
and  we  enable  D  to  support  himself;  whereas,  in  the  other, 
case,  he  must  be  supported  by  us.  D  is  not  producing  pine- 
apples under  glass,  nor  doing  any  other  absurdity :  he  is  only 
producing  something  which  nominally  costs  perhaps  a  tliird 
more  than  it  is  offered  at  by  your  foreign  friends,  but  which 
really,  taking  all  things  into  account,  costs  less,  and  will  cost  a 
great  deal  less  when  D  has  acquired  greater  skill.  This  is  our 
political  economy.     Convince  us  that  we  are  wrong  and  we 


28         REVIEW  OP  bastiat's  sophisms  op  protection. 

will  act  accordingly  ;  but  you  will  never  convince  us  we  arc 
wrong  by  calling  D  a  monopolist,  a  robber,  a  thief,  a  liver 
upon  public  charity,  a  man  actuated  by  the  spirit  of  a  slave- 
holder, etc. ;  nor  will  you  convince  us  by  talking  about  the 
shame  of  preventing  our  poor  laborers  from  spending  their 
hardly  earned  wages  as  they  please.  We  recognize  all  such 
twistings  and  turnings  as  the  tricks  of  the  rhetorician.  If 
you  cannot  convince  us  by  good  sound  logic  and  common 
sense,  you  are  at  liberty  to  depart  out  of  our  prosperous 
society.  There  are  plenty  of  people  who  will  be  glad  to  buy 
you  out." 

M.  Bastiat  writes :  — 

"  You,  Messrs.  Monopolists,  maintain  that  facts  are  for  you,  and 
that  we,  on  our  siile,  have  only  theory.  You  even  flatter  yourselves 
that  this  long  series  of  public  acts,  this  old  experience  of  Euro|)e 
which  you  invoke,  appeared  imposing  to  M.  Say ;  and  I  confess  that 
he  has  not  refuted  you  with  his  usual  sagacity. 

"  I,  for  my  part,  cannot  consent  to  give  up  to  you  the  domain  of 
facts  ;  for,  while  on  your  side  you  can  advance  only  limited  and  special 
facts,  we  can  oppose  to  them  universal  facts,  the  free  and  voluntary 
acts  of  all  men, 

"  What  do  we  maintain  ?     And  what  do  you  maintain  ? 

"  We  maintain  that  '  it  is  best  to  buy  from  others  what  we  can  our- 
selves produce  oidy  at  a  higher  price.' 

"  You  maintain  that  '  it  is  best  to  make  for  ourselves,  even  though 
it  should  cost  us  more  than  to  buy  from  others.' 

"  Now,  gentlemen,  putting  aside  theory,  demonstration,  reasoning 
(things  which  seem  to  nauseate  you),  which  of  these  assertions  is 
sanctioned  by  universal  practice?" 

M.  Bastiat  was  in  error.  Nothincj  would  delioht  us  more 
than  sound  theory  and  reasoning  ;  nothing  more  than  a  real 
demonstration  ;  but  theory  which  is  built  up  by  drawing  uni- 
versal conclusions  from  particular  premises,  reasoning  which 
violates  every  canon  of  logic,  a  demonstration  drawn  from  an 
identical  proposition,  —  these  certainly  do  turn  our  stomachs. 

We  deny  that  "  it  is  always  best  to  buy  from  others  wdiat 
we  can  ourselves  produce  only  at  a  higher  price."  The  dis- 
tribution of  the  individuals  in  a  community,  under  the  regime 


REVIEW   OF   BASTIAT'S    SOPHISMS   OF   PROTECTION.  29 

of  the  division  of  occupations,  is  not  found  to  be  so  perfect 
that  each  person  finds  employment  all  the  time  in  his  peculiar 
calling.  Many  find  themselves  out  of  work  much  of  the 
time  ;  and  this  leisure  those  who  are  thrift}'  employ  to  the 
best  advantage  they  can.  The  product,  if  sold  in  the  market, 
might  not  net  more  than  half  as  much  per  day  as  they  earn 
at  their  occupations  when  they  are  at  work  ;  but  it  is  clear 
gain.  They  are  good  economists  in  so  employing  themselves 
rather  than  sit  idle  and  repine  at  the  want  of  work. 

We  protectionists  do  7iot  maintain  the  general  proposition 
which  you  thrust  upon  us.  We  do  not  maintain  that  "  it 
is  best  to  make  for  ourselves,  even  though  it  should  cost  us 
more  than  to  buy  of  others."  The  proposition,  by  an  artful 
misuse  of  words,  begs  the  whole  question.  Costs  us  more 
than  to  buy  of  others  !  What  does  this  mean?  What  is  the 
cost  to  an  individual  of  a  piece  of  work  done  when  he  would 
otherwise  have  done  nothing  ?  What  is  the  cost  to  a  nation 
of  work  done  by  labor  otherwise  unoccupied  assisted  by  cap- 
ital otherwise  unemployed  ?  What  we  do  maintain  is,  that 
for  an  individual  it  is  best  to  do  something  for  himself  or 
others  during  the  days  when  his  special  trade  or  art  leaves 
him  unoccupied ;  and  that,  for  a  nation,  it  is  best  to  promote 
that  distribution  of  labor  and  capital  which  evolves  the 
greatest  gross  annual  product ;  for  the  gross  annual  product 
is  the  sum  of  the  net  individual  incomes,  as  has  been  recog- 
nized both  by  Adam  Smith  and  J.  B.  Say.  The  individual 
must  be  left,  in  his  local  position,  to  find  out  what  is  best  for 
him  to  do.  He  will  do  one  thing  under  free  trade  —  quite 
another  thing  under  protective  laws.  What  he  does  under 
one  system  affords  no  evidence  of  the  goodness  or  badness 
of  the  other  ;  nor  can  the  fact  that  he  does  this  or  that  afford 
any  evidence  that  this  or  that  will  promote  the  general  in- 
terest. Adam  Smith,  indeed,  after  adducing  a  few  instances 
in  which  he  thought  individuals  acting  solely  with  a  view  to 
their  own  interests  would,  nevertheless,  unintentionall}^  pro- 
mote tliat  of  the  societ}'',  added  the  words, —  "and  he  (the 
individual)  is  in  tliis,  as  in  many  other  cases,  led  by  an  in- 
visible hand   to  promote   an  end  which  was  no  part  of  his 


30  REVIEW   OF   BASTIAT's   SOPHISMS   OP   PROTECTION. 

intention  ;  "  but  it  will  be  observed  that  Adam  Smith  had  not 
the  folly  to  put  this  forth  as  a  true  induction.  He  threw  it 
out  as  a  rhetorical  flourish,  knowing  well  that  a  thoughtless 
crowd  ivould  seize  upon  it  as  a  general  proposition  revealing 
the  deep  plans  of  Providence  ;  and  that,  having  so  seized  upon 
it,  they  would  be  too  innocent  of  logic  to  be  shaken  in  tlieir 
faith  by  any  number  of  negative  instances.  But  fortunately 
all  men  are  not  imposed  upon  by  a  rhetorical  flourish.  Indeed, 
Adam  Smith  did  not  thus  impose  upon  himself,  for  he  advo- 
cated government  restraints  upon  the  issues  of  banks,  and 
defended  it  in  Book  II.,  Chapter  II.,  of  the  "  Wealth  of  Na- 
tions "  (towards  tlie  end),  in  the  following  words  :  — 

"  To  restrain  private  people,  it  may  be  said,  from  receiving  in  pay- 
ment the  promissory  notes  of  a  banker,  for  any  sum,  whether  great  or 
small,  when  they  themselves  are  willing  to  receive  them ;  or  to 
restrain  a  banker  from  issuing  such  notes,  when  all  his  neighbors  are 
willing  to  accept  them,  is  a  manifest  violation  of  that  natural  liberty 
which  it  is  the  proper  business  of  law,  not  to  infringe,  but  to  sup- 
port. Such  regulations  may,  no  doubt,  be  considered  as  in  some 
respect  a  violation  of  natural  liberty.  But  those  exertions  of  the 
natural  liberty  of  a  few  individuals,  which  might  endanger  the  security 
of  the  whole  society,  are,  and  ought  to  be,  restrained  by  the  laws  of 
all  governments,  —  of  the  most  free  as  well  as  of  the  most  despotical. 
The  obligation  of  building  party  walls,  in  order  to  prevent  communi- 
cation of  fire,  is  a  violation  of  natural  liberty,  exactly  of  the  same 
kind  with  the  regulations  of  the  banking  trade  which  are  here 
proposed." 

But  if  it  did  not  impose  upon  Adam  Smith  himself,  it  did 
upon  many  others,  as  may  be  inferred  from  the  following 
extract  from  Mr.  John  Stuart  Mill's  "  Political  Economy," 
Book  v.,  Chapter  XI.,  paragraph  12  :  — 

"  Mr.  "Wakefield  therefore  proposed  to  check  the  premature  occupa- 
tion of  land,  and  dispersion  of  the  people,  by  putting  upon  all  unap- 
propriated lands  a  rather  high  price,  the  proceeds  of  which  were  to  be 
expended  in  conveying  emigrant  laborers  from  the  mother  country. 

"  This  salutary  provision,  however,  has  been  objected  to,  in  the 
name  and  on  the  authority  of  what  was  represented  as  the  great  prin- 
ciple of  political  economy,  that  individuals  are  the  best  judges  of  their 


REVIEW   OF   BASTIAT'S   SOPHISMS   OF   PROTECTION.  31 

own  interest.  It  was  said  that  when  things  are  left  to  themselves,  land 
is  appropriated  and  occupied  by  the  spontaneous  choice  of  individuals,  in 
the  quantities  and  at  the  times  most  advantageous  to  each  person,  and 
therefore  to  the  community  generally  ;  and  that  to  interpose  artificial 
obstacles  to  their  obtaining  laud  is  to  prevent  them  from  adopting  the 
course  which,  in  their  own  judgment,  is  most  beneficial  to  them,  from  a 
self-conceited  notion  of  the  legislator,  that  he  knows  what  is  most  for 
their  interests,  better  than  they  do  themselves.  Now  this  is  a  complete 
misunderstanding,  either  of  the  system  itself,  or  of  the  principle  with 
which  it  is  alleged  to  conflict.  The  oversight  is  similar  to  that  which  we 
have  just  seen  exemplified  on  the  subject  of  hours  of  labor.  However 
beneficial  it  might  be  to  the  colony  in  the  aggregate,  and  to  each  individ- 
ual composing  it,  that  no  one  should  occupy  more  land  than  he  can 
properly  cultivate,  nor  become  a  proprietor  until  there  are  other  laborers 
ready  to  take  his  place  in  working  for  hire,  it  can  never  be  the  interest 
of  an  individual  to  exercise  this  forbearance,  unless  he  is  assured  that 
others  will  do  so  too.  Surrounded  by  settlers  who  have  each  their 
thousand  acres,  how  is  he  benefited  by  restricting  himself  to  fifty  ?  or 
what  does  he  gain  by  deferring  the  acquisition  for  a  few  years,  if  all 
other  laborers  rush  to  convert  their  first  earnings  into  estates  in  the 
wilderness,  several  miles  apart  from  one  another  ?  If  they,  by  seizing 
on  land,  prevent  the  formation  of  a  class  of  laborers  for  wages,  he  will 
not,  by  postponing  the  time  of  his  becoming  a  proprietor,  be  enabled 
to  employ  the  land  to  any  greater  advantage  when  he  does  obtain  it ; 
to  what  end  should  he  place  himself  in  what  will  appear  to  him  and 
others  a  position  of  inferiority,  by  remaining  a  laborer  when  all 
around  him  are  proprietors?  It  is  the  interest  of  each  to  do  what  is 
good  for  all,  but  only  if  others  will  do  likewise. 

"  The  principle  that  each  is  the  best  judge  of  his  own  interest, 
understood  as  these  objectors  understand  it,  would  prove  that  govern- 
ments ought  not  to  fulfil  any  of  their  acknowledged  duties,  —  ought 
not,  in  fact,  to  exist  at  all.  It  is  greatly  the  interest  of  the  community, 
collectively  and  individually,  not  to  rob  or  defraud  one  another  ;  but 
there  is  not  the  less  necessity  for  laws  to  punish  robbery  and  fraud ; 
because,  although  it  is  the  interest  of  each  that  nobody  should  rob  or 
cheat,  it  cannot  be  any  one's  interest  to  refrain  from  robbing  and 
cheating  others  when  all  others  are  permitted  to  rob  and  cheat  him. 
Penal  laws  exist  at  all,  chiefly  for  this  reason,  because  an  even  unani- 
mous opinion  that  a  certain  line  of  conduct  is  for  the  general  interest, 
does  not  make  it  people's  individual  interest  to  adhere  to  that  line  of 
conduct." 


32  REVIEW   OF   BASTIAT's   SOPHISMS    OF   PROTECTION. 

By  parity  of  reasoning,  we  must  say  that  when  it  is  the 
interest  of  the  community,  collectively  and  individually,  to 
build  up  a  home  market  by  buj-ing  "  each  of  the  other,"  there 
is  not  the  less  necessity  for  protective  law^s  ;  because  although 
it  is  the  interest  of  each  that  nobody  should  buy  some  article 
abroad,  it  cannot  be  any  one's  interest  to  refrain  from  buying 
abroad  when  all  others  are  permitted  to  do  so. 

It  will  be  seen  that  both  Adam  Smith  and  Mr.  Mill  take 
the  pretty  little  dream  of  the  invisible  hand,  and  the  doctrine 
that  individuals  can  judge  best  about  their  own  interests,  at 
their  true  value.  They  may  be  used  to  support  a  position 
which  they  wish  to  establish ;  but  they  are  really  of  no  im- 
portance. They  neither  of  them  put  forward  Bastiat's 
absurdity  that  each  individual  by  the  right  of  property  is 
invested  with  power  to  veto  the  action  of  the  whole  com- 
munity. 

M.  Bastiat  continues:  — 

"  You  are  not  then  sustained  hj  practice,  since  it  would  be  impossible, 
were  you  to  search  the  world,  to  show  us  a  single  man  who  acts  accord- 
ing to  your  principle." 

As  we  have  seen  that  every  prudent  and  thrifty  individual 
acts  contrary  to  the  principles  laid  down  by  M.  Bastiat  as 
those  of  free  trade,  and  in  accordance  with  the  real  principles 
of  the  protective  theory,  the  intrepidity  of  the  above  assertion 
is  marvellous. 

The  rest  of  the  chapter  is  full  of  similar  intrepidity  ;  im- 
puting admissions  and  arguments  which  protectionists  never 
make,  and  then  securing  to  himself  an  easy  victory  over  his 
men  of  straw.     He  concludes  as  follows  :  — 

"  And  all  this  for  what  ?  To  prove  to  us  that  we  consumers,  —  we 
are  your  property ;  that  we  belong  to  you,  soul  and  body ;  that  you 
have  an  exclusive  right  on  our  stomachs  and  our  limbs ;  that  it  is  your 
right  to  feed  and  dress  us  at  your  own  price,  however  great  your 
ignorance,  your  rapacity,  or  the  inferiority  of  your  work  !  Truly,  then, 
your  system  is  one  not  founded  upon  practice ;  it  is  one  of  abstraction 
—  of  extortion." 


REVIEW   OF   BASTIAT's   SOPHISMS   OF   PROTECTION.  83 

Pray  who  are  these  obstreperous  consumers,  in  whose  name 
M.  Bastiat  presumes  to  speak?  Nineteen  twentieths  of  the 
consumers,  as  already  shown,  are  also  producers,  either  of 
commodities  or  services^  with  whom  the  only  means  of  pur- 
chase are  their  products  ;  with  whom  to  produce  is  the  con- 
dition precedent  of  consumption.  He  certainly  had  no  reason 
to  speak  for  them.  Nor  is  the  case  any  better  with  the  re- 
maining twentieth.  The  gross  annual  product  of  commod- 
ities must  be  consumed  or  there  will  ensue  immediate  glut 
and  stagnation.  In  the  long  run  and  upon  an  average  of 
years  it  is  consumed  ;  being  distributed  in  w^ages,  profits,  and 
rent,  in  proportion  to  the  relative  importance  to  the  com- 
munity of  the  labor  and  the  capital  which  each  brings  to  the 
service  of  the  community.  An  augmented  annual  production 
must  then  issue  in  an  augmented  recompense  to  both  labor 
and  capital.  The  totality  of  consumers  is  benefited  ;  and 
each  is  benefited  in  proportion  to  the  importance  the  con- 
tribution which  his  labor  or  his  capital  makes  to  the  gross 
product  wdiich  has  to  be  divided.  The  manufacturer,  then, 
who,  in  these  United  States,  is  secretly  sighing  for  a  reduction 
of  wages  which  wall  enable  him  to  compete  in  the  "  great 
market  of  the  world  "  with  Great  Britain,  is  in  reality  sighing 
for  a  gain  which  must  bring  with  it  a  much  greater  loss  in 
the  diminution  of  the  vastly  more  extensive  home  market ; 
and  the  clergyman,  lawyer,  physician,  literary  man,  and  all 
receivers  of  salaries,  etc.,  labor  under  a  similar  hallucination, 
when  they  long  for  the  cheaper  products  of  cheaper  labor 
from  across  the  Atlantic  ;  for  with  such  cheaper  products 
must  come  less  employment  for  the  home  population,  and  a 
diminution  in  the  gross  annual  product  which  pays  not  only 
all  labor  but  all  salaries,  all  fees,  all  incomes.  This  might  not 
be  true  if  the  whole  of  our  productive  population  (actual 
and  potential)  could  be  employed  upon  the  branches  of 
production  in  which  we  have  an  advantage,  and  emploj'ed 
without  overstocking  the  markets  of  the  world  ;  but  it  appears 
to  be  indubitably  true  in  the  actual  situation  in  which  the 
United  States  and  other  nations  are  now  placed. 

Posdhly  a  world  might  exist  where  it  would  promote  the 

6 


34         REVIEW  OP  bastiat's  sophisms  of  protection. 

opulence  of  each  nation,  and  of  all  nations,  were  each  to  con- 
fine itself  to  those  fields  of  production  in  which  it  has  an 
advantage  ;  but  we  are  only  concerned  with  the  world  as  it  is  ; 
and  in  this  neither  inductive  nor  deductive  reasoning  leads  to 
the  conviction  that  the  best  possible  arrangement  springs 
"  natural!}^  "  from  the  unregulated  strife  of  individual  com- 
petition, —  the  clash  of  chaotic  cupidities.  The  laws  of 
nature  are  manifold.  Man  studies  them  ;  and,  by  artificial 
collocation  of  materials  and  forces,  brings  those  into  play 
which  promote  his  ends.  He  does  tliis  in  every  other  depart- 
ment. Why  should  he  not  do  it  in  the  department  which 
aims  at  social  opulence,  at  abundance  ?  He  sees  in  other 
nations  arts  which  give  a  prodigious  povrer  over  nature ;  why 
should  he  not  seek  to  acquire  them?  Nature  invites  and  re- 
wards study  with  a  most  liberal  hand  in  all  other  fields  ;  has 
she  forbidden  him  to  study  this  ?  No  ;  it  is  not  nature  that  has 
forbidden  him,  but  only  Adam  Smith  !  —  a  very  sagacious  and 
eminent  author  indeed,  but  one  hardly  justified  in  warning  off 
the  human  mind  from  a  most  important  field  of  investigation, 
—  perhaps,  indeed,  the  most  important  so  far  as  material  well- 
being  is  concerned.  That  individual  interest  can  rarely  lead 
to  the  acquirement  of  those  arts  has  been-  admirably  shown 
by  John  Ray  in  a  work  which  the  writer  has  just  referred  to 
with  delight  and  instruction.  That  is  the  work  of  a  philoso- 
pher and  seeker  after  truth  :  everywhere  cool  logic,  veracity, 
dignity  ;  earnestness,  indeed,  but  earnestness  to  discover  what 
is  right,  not  earnestness  to  prove  this  or  that  preconcep- 
tion to  be  right.  There  is  no  appeal  to  the  passions,  to  anger, 
to  pity,  to  envy,  to  greed,  nor  even  to  religious  prejudices. 
He  never  misrepresents  the  arguments  or  ideas  of  Adam 
Smith,  with  whom  he  differs  ;  never  puts  into  his  mouth  what 
he  did  not  say  ;  never  bursts  into  passionate  rhetorical  spasms, 
like  Bastiat.  He  neither  disgraces  himself  nor  affronts  his 
readers  by  the  exercise  of  any  such  arts.  If  a  similar  work 
is  to  be  found  upon  the  free-trade  side  of  political  economy, 
it  is  a  pity  the  League  should  have  paid  so  poor  a  compliment 
to  the  good  sense  of  the  American  people  as  to  have  preferred 
presenting  them  with  the  "  Sophisms  "  of  Bastiat. 


REVIEW   OF   BASTIAT's   SOPHISMS   OF   PROTECTION.  35 

Chapter  XIV.  is  entitled  "  Conflicting  Principles." 
In  this  M.  Bastiat  starts  from  this  premise:  — 

'*  The  disposing  by  law  of  consumers,  forcing  them  to  the  support 
of  home  industry,  is  an  encroachment  upon  their  liberty,  the  forbid- 
ding of  an  action  (mutual  exchange)  which  is  in  no  way  opposed  to 
morality.     In  a  word,  it  is  an  act  of  injustice." 

Under  the  regime  of  the  division  of  employments,  each 
individual  produces  a  certain  article  or  articles  with  which  to 
buy  whatever  he  requires.  Tlie  greater  the  value  of  what  he 
produces,  the  greater  the  amount  that  he  can  consume.  If 
by  buying  of  A  he  gets  more  than  by  buying  of  B,  he  does 
so.  His  interests  as  a  consumer  are  identical  with  his  interests 
as  a  producer. 

But  has  a  nation  no  rights  ?  There  is  a  nation  called  the 
United  States  :  fifty  millions  of  persons,  soon  to  be  a  hundred 
millions.  It  possesses  vast  resources  still  undeveloped.  It 
says  to  all  the  world,  "  Come  over  and  share  our  pros- 
perity. All  we  ask  is  that  you  should  live  like  men  as  we 
do ;  and  that,  being  furnished  with  work  by  us,  we  taking 
your  products  and  services,  you  shall  in  turn  consume  the 
products  and  services  of  others  among  us  so  far  as  our  laws 
and  customs  require.  We  have  become  convinced  that  this 
system  promotes  the  general  good,  and  that  under  it  you  will 
yourselves  enjoy  a  greater  abundance  than  under  any  other." 
"  But,"  says  A,  "  this  is  not  what  I  desire.  I  would  like  to 
have  you  give  me  high  wages  ;  but,  when  I  have  got  them,  I 
have  a  right  to  buy  of  whomsoever  I  please  ;  and  C,  across  the 
Atlantic,  being  willing  to  live  a  great  deal  cheaper  than  B, 
can  give  me  considerably  more  for  my  wages  than  B  will." 
The  United  States  might  reply  :  ''  If  you  have  any  such  right, 
then  one  individual  can  veto  the  action  of  fifty  millions,  mak- 
ing their  interests  give  way  to  what  he  supposes  to  be  his,  but 
which  we  are  satisfied  are  not  his,  because  if  A  is  to  be 
allowed  to  act  in  this  way  every  other  citizen  must  be  allowed 
to  do  so ;  and  then,  a  large  proportion  of  our  industries  being 
transferred  abroad,  high  wages  will  disappear,  and  with  them, 
the  ability  to  buy  the  cheap  foreign  goods."    "  But  this  is  not 


86  REVIEW    OF    BASTIAT's   SOPHISMS   OF   PROTECTION. 

SO,"  cries  A.  "  Adam  Smith  and  all  the  illustrious  and  learned 
foreign  economists  down  to  M.  Bastiat  agree  that  it  is  best  to 
allow  every  man  to  buy  where  he  can  buy  cheapest.  They 
assure  me  that  they  have  demonstrated  the  doctrine,  and  that 
none  but  ignorant  people  have  any  doubt  upon  the  subject." 
The  fifty  millions  might  reply  :  "  Protectionist  writers  have 
gone  over  those  reasonings  and  pointed  out  gross  blunders  in 
them ;  blunders  that  would  ruin  the  reputation  of  any  of  us 
ignorant  people.  Moreover,  we  see  clearly  enough  that  where 
much  is  produced  there  is  much  to  consume.  If  half  of  us, 
■working  in  the  industries  where  we  have  a  decided  advantage, 
can  produce  as  much  as  we  all  require,  and  as  much  as  can  find 
a  good  market  abroad,  it  needs  no  philosopher  to  see  that  the 
other  half  of  the  population  had  better  be  employed,  even 
upon  less  productive  fields.  This  is  our  theory  ;  and  under 
it  we  have  always  prospered,  except  during  the  years  1873- 
1879,  when  other  sufficient  causes  produced  depression.^ 
Whenever  we  have  faltered  in  this  policy  we  have  suffered, 
even  during  the  years  following  1849,  when  Australian 
and  Californian  gold  favored  prosperity  everywhere.  We 
believe  that  both  inductive  and  deductive  reasoning  war- 
rant our  practice  ;  and  if  A  does  not  think  so  he  had  better 
go  to  England  and  stay  there.  To  allow  him  to  remain  and 
do  as  he  likes,  to  the  detriment  of  the  community  which 
gives  him  his  opportunity  of  gaining  a  living,  —  this^  in- 
deed, would  be  an  injustice.  His  demand  is  opposed  to 
morality.  Every  moral  teacher  from  Socrates  down  would 
so  declare  it." 

There  is  no  ground  then  for  M.  Bastiat's  deduction  that 
according  to  protectionist  reasoning  titUlty  is  incompatible 
with  the  internal  administration  of  justice  or  incompatible 
■with  the  maintenance  of  external  peace.  These  are  M.  Bas- 
tiat's conclusions,  indeed,  but  they  cannot  be  worked  out  from 
any  sound  premises.  As  to  the  foreign  consumer,  we  have  no 
charge  of  his  interests.  By  looking  after  those  of  the  United 
States  w^e  shall  do  all  we  have  any  title  to  do.  By  taking 
good  care  of  our  own  affairs,  we  may  very  likely  promote 
those  of  the  rest  of  the  world  as  effectually  as  if  we  assumed 

1  See  note  2,  page  79. 


REVIEW   OF   BASTIAT's   SOPHISMS   OF   PROTECTION.  37 

the  rSle  of  general  philantliropist.  A  multitude  of  opulent 
nations  woald  still  have  a  vast  international  trade,  —  probably 
much  larger  in  actual  volume  (though  less,  perliaps,  in  pro- 
portion to  the  total  annual  products)  than  can  be  supported 
between  the  same  nations  impoverished  by  free  trade. 

There  is  no  call,  then,  for  M.  Bastiat's  rhapsodies  and  dec- 
lamations about  horrible  blasphemy,  liberty,  utility,  justice, 
peace,  and  the  manifestation  of  the  wisdom  of  God  as  shown 
in  the  sublime  harmony  of  material  creation.  The  sober  and 
clear-headed  American  people  are  not  likely  to  be  fooled  in 
this  way. 

Chapter  XV.  is  entitled  "  Reciprocity  Again.." 
This  chapter  argues  that  an  individual  in  a  nation  having 
no  external  relations  sells  his  product  for  mone}',  "  casts  his 
product  into  the  national  circulation,"  and  by  means  of  money 
withdraws  a  like  value ;  that  if  thereafter  the  exchanges  of 
the  nation  be  opened  —  made  free  —  wdth  other  nations,  the 
individual  will  in  like  manner  cast  his  product  into  the  larger 
market,  that  of  the  world. 

But  induction  from  facts  and  deductive  reasoning  alike 
show  tliat  the  individual  may  find  the  universal  market 
smaller  than  the  national.  The  farmer  may  have  an  advan- 
tage not  only  in  growing  wheat,  cotton,  and  tobacco,  but  also 
in  growing  green  crops  and  market  products  not  susceptible 
of  distant  conveyance.  He  wishes  to  exchange  these  for 
manufactured  goods  which  can  be  brought  from  the  ends  of 
the  earth.  He  throws  them  into  the  market  of  the  world  ; 
but  the  world  market  for  tke7n  is  bounded  by  a  radius  of  a  few 
tens  of  miles.  He  can  produce  of  them  (his  most  profitable 
crops)  only  what  can  be  taken  by  the  population  occupying 
the  limited  area.  Put  a  cotton  or  woollen  mill  or  any  other 
manufacturing  establishment  near  the  farmer  and  his  possible 
production  of  salable  articles,  and  consequently  his  possible 
consumption  is  increased  greatly.  The  laissez-faire  system 
produces  liere  a  smaller  product  for  the  individual,  for  his 
immediate  vicinity,  for  his  nation,  and  for  the  world.  If  he 
buys  that  which  comes  from  a  great  distance,  he  must  raise 


38  REVIEW   OF   BASTIAT's   SOPHISMS   OF   PROTECTION. 

that  which  can  be  carried  to  a  great  distance,  —  that  is,  a  few 
articles,  for  which  the  distant  markets  are  very  limited. 

Bastiat  next  reasons  from  individual  action  to  national, 
forgetting  that  nations  are  few  and  individuals  many.  A 
casts  his  individual  product  into  the  national  market,  and  sells 
it.  Innumerable  producers  compete  to  supply  him  with  what 
he  needs.  Frequent  combinations  among  them  to  fleece  him 
arebe3'ohdthe  range  of  probability  ;  iind  any  occurrence  which 
should  stop  his  supply  is  scarcely  possible.  It  is  not  so  with 
nations.  They  are  few,  and  the  possible  events  which  might 
stop  a  foreign  supply  are  ver}^  many. 

Finall}',  Bastiat  says  that  if  the  supply  and  demand  from 
abroad  should  stop,  we  should  only  be  forced  upon  isolation^ 
to  reach  which  is  the  ideal  of  the  protective  system. 

But  it  has  been  already  observed  that  protection  does  not 
aim  at  nor  tend  to  isolation.  It  aims  at  and  accomplishes  a 
comparative  independence  as  to  the  great  necessaries  of  life, 
and  brings  about  a  great  increase  of  opulence,  from  which 
springs  the  ability  to  enjoy  a  thousand  luxuries  which  can 
really  be  got  to  better  advantage  elsewhere.  The  products 
which  the  United  States  throws  into  the  market  of  the  world 
are  thirty  times  greater  (per  head)  than  free-trade  India 
throws ;  they  are  many  times  greater  than  those  of  Portugal, 
Turkey,  Ireland,  and  nearly  equal  to  those  of  Great  Britain's 
American  colonies,  being  $16.70  per  head  to  $19.04  per  head. 
This  last  is  a  remarkable  fact.  The  United  States  makes  for 
herself  vastly  more,  per  liead,  than  those  colonies  consume, 
and  still  sells  in  the  market  of  the  world  a  surplus  as  great, 
or  nearly  as  great,  as  theirs  under  free  trade. 

We  say  that  this  is  a  fact.  You  cannot  deny  it.  But  j'ou 
deny  that  the  fact  has  any  connection  with  protection.  We 
reply  that  by  deductive  reasoning  we  show  that  such  a  fact 
ought  to  occur  under  protection  ;  and  by  observations  which 
you  cannot  and  do  not  deny,  we  show  that  it  does  occur. 
You  reply  that  you  have  shown  by  deductive  reasoning  that 
no  such  fact  could  follow  such  a  cause.  We  answer,  in  turn, 
that  we  have  pointed  out  errors  in  your  deductions,  errors 
which  absolutely  annihilate  them ;  while  you  have  not  found 


REVIEW   OF   BASTIAT'S   SOPHISMS   OF   PROTECTION.  39 

any  errors  in  our  deductions,  but  answer  them  only  by  a 
repetition  of  your  own  (just  as  if  they  had  never  been  con- 
futed), and  by  a  vast  amount  of  declamation  and  rhetoric. 
You  do  not  prove  the  contradictory  of  our  propositions,  but 
only  the  contradictory  of  some  other  propositions,  which  you 
put  into  our  mouths,  but  which  we  ourselves  never  dreamed  of. 

Chapter  XVI.,  —  "Obstructed  Rivers  pleading  for  the 
Prohibitionists." 

This  is  the  case  of  the  Douro,  which,  according  to  M. 
Bastiat,  neither  Spain  nor  Portugal  was  willing  to  improve, 
for  fear  that  grain  would  pass  between  the  two  countries. 
The  chapter  does  not  give  sufficient  facts  to  enable  a  protec- 
tionist to  decide  whether,  under  the  circumstances,  it  was  or 
was  not  desirable  to  expend  money  in  removing  the  obstruc- 
tions. To  M.  Bastiat  the  case  appeared  simple.  He  was  for 
removing  all  obstructions  to  individual  action.  To  protec- 
tionists, who  do  not  believe  that  individual  action  necessarily 
leads  to  the  best  result  for  a  community,  the  case  is  not  so 
clear.  We  believe  that  Adam  Smith  was  right  in  advocating 
the  regulation  by  the  society  of  individual  action  regarding 
the  currency,  and  that  Mr.  John  Stuart  Mill  was  right  in 
advocating  similar  regulations  regarding  a  variety  of  matters 
touching  the  general  good.  We  believe  that  laissez  faire 
and  giving  perfect  freedom  to  individual  action  is  not  good 
in  theorj^  and  has  never  yet  anywhere  been  adopted  in 
practice. 

Chapter  XVII.  is  entitled  "  A  Negative  Railroad." 
This  chapter  is  a  good  specimen  of  M.  Bastiat's  reasoning. 
By  diligent  search  or  lively  invention,  he  produces  an  absurd 
proposal  that  a  railroad  should  have  a  break  or  terminus  at 
Bordeaux,  in  order  that  goods  and  passengers  should  be  thus 
forced  to  contribute  to  the  profits  of  the  boatmen,  porters, 
commission-merchants,  hotel-keepers,  etc.  He  then  argues 
that  IF  such  profit  be  conformable  to  the  public  interest,  there 
ought  to  be  similar  breaks  elsewhere,  and  these  too  Avould  be 
for  the  general  good,  and  for  the  interest  of  national  labor. 


40  REVIEW   OF   BASTIAT's   SOPHISMS   OF   PROTECTION. 

"  For  it  is  certain  that  in  proportion  to  the  number  of  these 
breaks  or  termini  will  be  the  increase  in  consignments,  com- 
missions, lading,  unlading,  etc."  A  protectionist  would  say  at 
once  that  the  first  break  was  detrimental,  and  that  many  would 
utterly  prevent  all  consignments,  commissions,  etc.,  coming 
thus  to  a  conclusion  the  opposite  of  that  which  M.  Bastiat 
says  is  certain,  —  a  conclusion,  by  the  way,  which  would  not 
be  certain,  even  if  the  premises  were  sound.  M.  Bastiat, 
however,  insists  — 

"  that  the  restrictive  principle  is  identical  with  that  which  would 
maintain  this  system  of  breaks  ;  it  is  the  sacrifice  of  the  consumer  to 
the  producer,  —  of  the  end  to  the  means." 

This  shows,  out  of  M.  Bastiat's  own  mouth,  that  he  had  no 
conception  of  what  protection  does  actually  aim  at.  It  aims 
at  the  greatest  possible  consumption,  but  recognizes  (what 
M.  Bastiat  apparently  did  not)  that,  before  an  individual  or 
a  nation  can  consume  largely,  he  or  it  must  produce.  Pro- 
tectionists are  as  anxious  as  free-traders  —  more  anxious  than 
free-traders  —  to  remove  obstacles,  to  improve  machinery,  to 
improve  tools,  to  improve  the  arrangement  and  organization 
of  society.  It  aims  at  whatever  will  increase  the  gross  annual 
product.  Evidently  M.  Bastiat  never  learned  such  a  doc- 
trine ;  but  he  might  have  deduced  it  by  easy  economical 
reasoning  from  the  sound  parts  of  Adam  Smith  and  J.B.Say. 
The  trouble  with  him  was  that  he  gathered  iij  their  errors, 
and  passed  by  their  sound  reasoning  ;  that  he  took  in  sober 
earnest,  and  as  universal  generalizations,  what  tliey  threw  out 
as  rhetorical  flourishes.  Tinsel  caught  his  eye  quicker  than 
solid  gold.  So  lie  swallowed  laissez  faire^  and  thought  to 
build  a  science  upon  a  proposition  drawn  from  a  few  and 
uncertain  instances,  and  forbidden  by  innumerable  negative 
instances.  M.  Bastiat  certainly  profited  little  from  the 
"  Novum  Organum,"  or  from  Mr.  John  Stuart  Mill's 
"Logic." 

Chapter  XVIII.,  —  "  There  are  no  Absolute  Principles." 
M.  Bastiat  scoffs  at  the  idea  that  there  are  in  political 
economy  no  absolute  principles,  and  reaffirms  that  the  free- 


REVIEW   OF   BASTIAT'S   SOPHISMS   OF   PROTECTION.  41 

dom  of  exchanges  is  an  absolute  principle.     He  deduces  this 
from  the  provisioning  of  a  great  city.     He  says  :  — 

"  Contemplating  this  great  city  of  Paris,  I  have  thought  to  myself: 
Here  are  a  million  of  human  beings,  who  would  die  in  a  few  days  if 
provisions  of  every  kind  did  not  flow  towards  this  vast  metropolis. 
The  imagination  is  unable  to  contemplate  the  multiplicity  of  objects 
which  to-morrow  must  enter  its  gates,  to  prevent  the  life  of  its  inhabi- 
tants terminating  in  famine,  riot,  or  pillage.  And  yet,  at  this  moment 
all  are  asleep,  without  feeling  one  moment's  uneasiness  from  the 
contemplation  of  this  frightful  possibility.  On  the  other  side,  we 
see  eighty  departments  who  have  this  day  labored,  without  concert, 
without  mutual  understanding,  for  the  victualling  of  Paris.  How  can 
each  day  bring  just  what  is  necessary,  nothing  less,  nothing  more,  to 
this  gigantic  market  ?  What  is  the  ingenious  and  secret  power  which 
presides  over  the  astonishing  regularity  of  such  complicated  move- 
ments,—  a  regularity  in  which  we  all  have  so  implicit,  though  thought- 
less, a  faith  ;  on  which  our  comfort,  our  very  existence  depends  ?  This 
power  is  an  absolute  principle,  the  jirinciple  of  freedom  in  exchanges. 
We  have  faith  in  that  inner  light  which  Providence  has  placed  in  the 
hearts  of  all  men,  confiding  to  it  the  preservation  and  amelioration 
of  our  species,  —  interest,  since  we  must  give  its  name,  so  vigilant,  so 
active,  having  so  much  forecast,  when  allowed  its  free  action." 

M.  Bastiat  then  declares  that  no  minister,  however  superior 
his  abilities,  could  arrange  things  so  well,  and  that  if  he 
should  attempt  it,  the  actually  existing  misery  would  be 
infinitely  increased,  etc.,  etc. 

This  chapter  may  be  good,  considered  as  declamation  or 
rhetoric,  but  we  fear  it  would  hardly  stand  a  test  by  ]\Ir. 
Mill's  canons  of  inductive  logic.  What  M.  Bastiat  under- 
took to  prove  was  that  in  political  economy  it  was  an  absolute 
(by  which  he  must  have  meant  a  universal)  proposition  that 
freedom  in  exchanges  is,  in  every  case,  promotive  of  opu- 
lence ;  or  that  every  constraint  put  upon  the  freedom  of 
exchanges  is  unfavorable  to  progress  in  opulence. 

His  method  of  proof  was  to  present  the  case  of  a  great 
city  provisioned  regularly  without  any  supervision.  He  rep- 
resents that  there  is  never  too  much,  never  too  little,  etc., 
statements  which  it  would  be  necessary  to  verify,  and  which 

*  6 


42  EEVIEW    OF  BASTIAT's   SOPHISMS    OP   PROTECTION. 

could  not  be  verified.  On  the  contrary,  it  would  be  found 
that  at  times  there  are  short,  and  at  times  excessive,  supplies ; 
that  much  food  perishes  unused  almost  in  the  sight,  nay, 
quite  in  the  sight,  of  hungry  crowds ;  that  much  clothing 
wears  out  on  the  shop  shelves  in  the  sight  of  shivering  myriads. 
M.  Bastiat  alleges  that  matters  would  be  much  worse  under 
the  management  of  a  single  head  with  suitable  assistants,  but 
he  does  not  prove  this  ;  and  a  general  proposition  intended  to 
be  the  basis  of  an  important  science  should  not  rest  upon 
opinion.  As  there  is  great  irregularity  of  supply,  so  great 
that  some  90  per  cent  of  the  mercantile  classes  (who  under- 
take the  management  of  such  matters)  fail  and  become 
bankrupts,  the  results  of  free  competition  are  evidently  far 
from  perfect.  Whether  they  could  or  could  not  be  better 
managed  by  a  government  bureau  is  a  matter  of  opinion,  not 
a  matter  of  certaint3\  To  establish  M.  Bastiat's  proposition 
inductively,  it  is  necessary  to  find  not  only  instances  in  which 
opulence  attends  freedom  of  exchange,  but  also  to  show  that 
poverty  never  attends  it.  How  then  about  Ireland,  Turkey, 
Portugal,  India  ;  and,  to  a  minor  extent,  but  still  to  a  very 
observable  extent,  all  the  American  colonies  of  Great  Britain  ? 
Freedom  of  exchange  has  not  prevented  millions  from  starv- 
ing in  Ireland  and  India  in  the  midst  of  all  the  possibilities 
of  plent}'.  These  are  negative  instances,  any  one  of  which 
would  be  sufficient  to  forbid  the  proposed  generalization.  If, 
then,  it  is  to  be  proved  that  freedom  of  exchange  is  even  one 
among  many  causes  of  opulence,  it  must  be  proved  deductively. 
It  cannot  be  proved  a  posteriori  in  the  face  of  numerous  nega- 
tive instances.  Let  us  then  try  the  case  deductively,  and 
first  with  regard  to  an  individual.  A  produces  something. 
Free  trade  saj^s.  Stick  to  your  particular  business,  and  buy 
with  your  products,  in  which  you  have  an  advantage,  the 
other  things  you  desire  which  are  produced  by  persons  who 
have  an  advantage  over  you  in  their  production.  Yes  ;  cer- 
tainly, if  A  has  occupation  all  the  time.  But  if  he  has  occu- 
pation for  only  four  days  out  of  six,  then  most  certainly 
let  him  do  something  else  during  the  two  unoccupied  days, 
rather  than  call  in  a  skilled  artist  to  do  it  for  him.     He  may 


REVIEW   OP   BASTIAT'S   SOPHISMS   OF   PROTECTION.  43 

not  do  it  as  well  or  easily  at  first,  but  he  will  do  it  after  a 
fashion,  and  better  and  better  every  time  he  tries ;  and  he 
will  save  a  portion  of  his  four  days'  earnings,  which  would 
otherwise  be  paid  out  for  the  work  he  now  does  for  himself. 
If  he  be  thrifty  he  will  do  this  of  liis  own  accord ;  if  he  be 
unthrifty  it  would  be  better  for  him,  so  far  as  opulence  is  con- 
cerned, if  he  were  constrained  to  do  so.  But  this  is  to  invade 
his  liberty.  True  ;  and  upon  other  grounds  tlian  that  of 
procuring  abundance,  it  may  be  better  not  to  constrain  him ; 
but  that  is  another  question.  The  question  we  have  before 
us  is,  "  How  shall  he  obtain  the  greatest  abundance  ?  "  There 
can  be  no  sound  reasoning  if  we  fly  off  iroai  the  point  under 
discussion. 

Now  let  us  consider  a  nation,  say,  the  United  States.  It 
possesses  a  decided  advantage  in  growing  cotton.  Are  we  to 
confine  ourselves,  fifty  millions  of  us,  to  growing  cotton?  It 
is  only  necessary  to  ask  the  question  to  make  the  absurdity 
apparent.  We  have  also  an  abundance  of  cheap  land,  capable 
of  yielding  agricultural  products  for  seven  hundred  millions 
of  people,  and  at  our  present  rate  of  increase  we  shall  grow  to 
be  a  hundred  millions  in  twenty-five  years ;  and  to  two  hun- 
dred millions  in  half  a  centur}'.  Some  twenty-five  millions  of 
people  three  thousand  miles  away  are  willing  to  take  a  few 
agricultural  products  of  us,  and  they  say  they  will  give  us  in 
return  manufactured  products  cheaper  than  Ve  can  make 
them  ourselves,  while  land  is  open  to  all  at  a  nominal  price. 

Twenty-five  millions  of  people  (a  minute  portion  of  the 
human  race)  propose  to  do  the  mechanical  and  manufacturing 
work  for  a  thousand  millions.  But  a  thousand  millions  of 
people  can  raise  raw  agricultural  products  for  three  thousand 
millions  ;  where  are  the  other  two  thousand  millions  ?  Or,  to 
put  it  in  another  shape,  three  hundred  and  fifty  millions  can 
raise  raw  agricultural  products  for  the  world ;  what  are  the 
other  six  hundred  and  fifty  millions  to  do  while  the  English 
Islands  do  all  the  mechanical  and  manufacturing  labors  ? 
England  teaches  free-trade  doctrines,  and  these  promise  a 
greater  abundance  than  is  practicable  witli  protection.  We 
have  a  right,  then,  to  assume  that  she  promises  the  world  at 


44         REVIEW  OP  bastiat's  sophisms  op  protection. 

least  as  great  an  abundance  of  mechanical  and  manufactured 
products  as  are  enjoyed  by  the  people  of  the  United  States 
who  are  so  silly  and  unscientific  as  to  help  themselves.  They 
consume  per  head  a  value  of  $100  in  such  products.  A  hun- 
dred dollars  each  for  one  thousand  millions  of  people  is  one 
hundred  thousand  millions.  The  remuneration  of  capital 
and  labor  for  converting  the  raw  material,  even  at  a  low 
rate,  would  be  thirty  thousand  millions  of  dollars,  or  about 
six  times  the  total  annual  production  and  consumption  of  the 
whole  British  Islands!  Here  we  come  to  an  absurdit}'.  The 
dream  of  being  the  workshop  to  the  world  enjoying  abun- 
dance is  seen  to  be  only  a  dream.  If  those  Islands  were 
called  upon  to  supply  the  United  States  alone,  profits  and 
wages  would  speedily  be  doubled  or  trebled  there,  and  the 
cheapness  which  exists  during  lack  of  demand  would  vanish. 
But  what  she  could  give  us  of  finished  products  would  be 
limited  b}^  the  amount  she  could  consume  of  our  raw  prod- 
ucts ;  and  a  very  short  calculation  will  show  that  the  quantity 
would  be  only  a  small  fraction  of  what  we  get  by  helping 
ourselves  even  now,  and  twice  as  inadequate  twenty-five 
years  hence. 

Any  one  who  has  been  taught  simple  arithmetic  can  see 
that  Great  Britain  cannot  give  us  abundance  at  any  price. 
She  can  give  us  cheapness  and  scarcity  if  we  will  first  allow 
her  to  destroy  our  own  industries  and  drive  an  undue 
proportion  of  us  on  to  farms ;  but  we  can  have  an  abundance 
of  finished  products  only  by  manufacturing  ourselves.  In 
this  way  we  can  have  all  we  need  witliout  paying  more  in 
labor  and  abstinence  than  we  pay  for  raw  products. 

• 

Chapter  XIX., — "National  Independence," 

A  chapter  so  full  of  inveracity,  audacious  misrepresentation, 

and  declamation  as  to  be  positively  wonderful.     It  says  in 

substance  that :  — 

"With  free  trade  and  mutual  independence  would  come  eternal 
peace!  'Interest'  —  that  is,  the  immediate  selfish  interest  of  the 
unhridled  individual  —  is  the  necessary,  eternal,  and  indestructible 
mover  to  the  guidance  of  which  Providence  has  confided  human  per- 
fectibility.    The  'spoliators'  declaim  against  the   beautiful  harmony 


REVIEW   OP  BASTIAT's   SOPHISMS   OF   PROTECTION.  45 

which  God  has  been  pleased  to  establish  in  the  moral  world,"  etc., 
usque  ad  nauseam. 

The  fact  is  that  the  most  wicked  wars  of  modern  times  have 
been  waged  to  promote  free  trade,  and  more  would  be  waged 
were  it  not  that  the  great  protectionist  powers  are  too  strong 
to  be  attacked. 

Chapter  XX.,  — "  Human  Labor  —  National  Labor." 

M.  Bastiat  maintains  that  the  destruction  of  machinery  and 
the  prohibition  of  foreign  goods  are  two  acts  proceeding  from 
the  same  doctrine. 

This  only  proves  that  M.  Bastiat  was  entirely  ignorant  of 
political  economy.  He  takes  the  case  of  machinery  and  shows 
easily  enough  that  its  introduction  is  advantageous.  The 
gross  annual  product  is  not  diminished,  the  immediate  loss 
which  falls  upon  the  displaced  laborers  is  made  good  to  labor 
in  general  by  the  expenditure  of  the  sum  saved.  Thus  far, 
all  right ;  but  his  next  step  is  a  blunder. 

Ten  millions  of  hats  produced  in  France  at  fifteen  francs 
makes  one  hundred  and  fifty  millions  of  francs.  Import  from 
abroad  at  ten  francs,  and  they  will  cost  one  hundred  millions  ; 
and  the  fifty  millions  saved  being  spent  for  other  articles  or 
services,  M.  Bastiat  imagines  that  all  will  be  serene  the  same 
as  in  the  case  of  machineiy.  But  he  overlooks  the  fact  that 
the  one  hundred  and  fifty  millions'  value  of  hats  provoked 
and  remunerated  other  French  labor,  producing  values  of  one 
hundred  and  fifty  millions  ;  the  sum  of  products,  then  (the 
whole  price  of  which  was  net  individual  income  to  French- 
men ;  see  J.  B.  Say),  was  three  hundred  millions.  Bring 
in  the  English  hats,  and  the  French  products  to  pay  for  the 
hats  (supposing  complete  reciprocity)  will  be  one  hundred 
millions.  If  the  fifty  millions  saved  on  the  hats  be  spent  for 
other  products,  or  say  for  more  hats,  then  the  gross  French 
product  will  be  one  hundred  and  fifty  millions.  France 
altogether  will  have  lost  one  hundred  and  fifty  millions.  The 
case  is  totally  unlike  that  of  machinery.  If  M.  Bastiat  had 
been  competent  to  instruct  the  American  people,  he  would 
not  have  made  such  a  blunder. 


46  REVIEW   OF   BASTIAT's   SOPHISMS   OF   PROTECTION, 

Chapter  XXI.  is  entitled  "  Raw  Material." 
Here  the  blunder  just  noticed  comes  on  the  stage  again. 
M.  Bastiat  quotes  M.  de  St.  Cricq  as  saying :  — 

"  *  Labor  constitutes  the  riches  of  a  nation,  because  it  creates  supplies 
for  the  gratification  of  our  necessities  ;  and  universal  comfort  consists 
in  the  abundance  of  those  supplies.'  « 

"  Here,"  sr  ys  M.  Bastiat,  "  we  have  the  principle. 

" '  But  this  abundance  ought  to  be  the  result  of  national  labor.  If 
it  were  the  result  of  foreign  labor,  national  labor  must  receive  an 
inevitable  check.' 

"  Here,"  says  M.  Bastiat,  "  lies  the  error.  (See  the  preceding 
fallacy.)" 

There  are  inaccuracies  of  expression  in  what  is  represented 
to  have  been  said  by  M.  de  St.  Cricq,  but  it  is  plain  enough 
what  he  means,  if  one  wishes  to  understand.  Labor  does 
not  constitute  the  riches  of  a  nation ;  but  labor  produces  or 
causes  the  riches  of  a  nation,  because  it  creates  supplies  for  the 
gratification  of  our  necessities,  and  universal  comfort  consists 
in  the  abundance  of  those  supplies ;  and  the  labor  must  be 
national  labor.  It  cannot  by  any  possibility  be  foreign  labor, 
for  that  will  not  give  an  atom  of  its  products  except  in  ex- 
change for  an  atom  of  ours,  or  for  bonds  which  are  mortgages, 
or  for  treasure.  If  nation  A  produces  articles  with  less  labor 
than  nation  B,  and  nation  B  produces  other  articles  Avith  less 
labor  than  nation  A,  it  will  be  well  for  them  to  exchange,  pro- 
vided the  gross  annual  product  of  each  nation  remains  undimin- 
ished. If  it  be  diminished  in  either  nation,  then  clearly  that 
nation  is  the  loser.  How  can  this  be  when  both  are  getting 
things  cheaper  ?  Because  the  articles  and  services  in  demand 
in  each  country  are  not  infinite  in  number,  but  limited  ;  nor 
are  they  in  infinite  demand  as  to  quantity,  but  also  in  limited 
demand.  Nation  A  produced  both  articles,  x  and  y,  enough 
for  its  demand  at  the  cost  price.  Nation  B  also  produced 
both  articles,  x  and  ^,  enough  for  its  demand  at  the  cost  price. 
Nation  A  now  transfers  to  nation  B  the  industry  producing  x, 
and  nation  B  transfers  to  nation  A  the  industry  producing  y. 
The  aggregate  demand  for  products  and  services  in  general  is 
diminished  in  one  or  the  other  nation  unless  x  and  y  balance. 


REVIEW    OF   BASTIAT's   SOPHISMS   OF   PROTECTION.  47 

If  the  demand  in  nation  A  for  B's  cheaper  product  3/  be  1 
and  the  demand  in  nation  B  for  A's  cheaper  product  x  be  5, 
the  extra  4  can  only  be  had  by  nation  B  so  long  as  its  treas- 
ure and  securities  hold  out.^  Thereafter  it  must  be  content 
with  one  fifth  of  the  article  x  that  it  had  before,  and  this 
deplorable  result  will  be  arrived  at  by  an  appreciation  of  the 
value  of  gold,  making  all  debts,  public  and  private,  more 
onerous,  and  reducing  the  exchangeable  value  of  its  whole 
accumulated  capital  in  the  market  of  the  world.  The  ac- 
cepted theory  of  international  exchange  leaves  out  of  sight 
three  not  altogether  insignificant  facts,  —  the  first,  the  fact  that 
there  is  such  a  thing  as  money  in  the  world ;  the  second,  that 
nations  can  and  do  run  in  debt  to  other  nations ;  the  third, 
that  the  debtor  nation  must  sell  its  products  for  what  the 
creditors  are  willing  to  give.  Bastiat  assumes  falsely  that,  if 
France  gives  up  making  hats  and  takes  them  from  England, 
then  England  will  increase  its  consumption  of  French  articles 
to  the  same  extent.  The  increase  in  the  English  field  of 
employment  consequent  upon  the  new  demand  for  hats  will 
give  England  a  greater  power  of  consumption  ;  but  this 
power  will  be  exerted  in  buying  more  of  everything  (com- 
modities and  services)  which  England  habituall}'  desires  and 
buj's.  Only  a  small  portion  of  the  increased  consumption  will 
fall  upon  French  products ;  the  balance  must  be  paid  in 
treasure.  If  this  be  recovered  from  other  nations  it  v/ill  only 
be  by  offering  them  French  products  cheaper  than  before. 

Abundance  then  cannot  be  the  result  of  foreign  labor ;  the 
foreign  products  can  only  be  obtained  in  exchange  for  national 
products,  or  for  money  or  for  bonds,  that  is,  by  running  in 
debt ;  and  the  introduction  of  the  foreign  product,  even  at  a 
two-thirds  price,  may  lead  to  a  marked  impoverishment  of  one 
or  the  other  of  the  exchanging  nations.  One  or  the  other  may 
have  a  greater  power  of  purchase  at  the  high  price,  than  it 
has  at  the  lower  price. 

The  rest  of  the  chapter  is  a  conversation  between  manufac- 
turers who  wish  to  have  materials  introduced  duty  free,  and 
M.  de  St.  Cricq. 

Manufacturers  often  wish  their  own  individual  interests,  or 
supposed  interests,  to  be  made  the  concern  of  the  State ;  but 

1  See  note  3,  page  79. 


48  REVIEW    OF    BASTIAT'S    SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION. 

no  protectionist,  properl}''  so  called,  considers  any  but  the 
problem  of  how  the  nation  may  become  wealthier,  wiser, 
and  better.  It  is  unnecessary  to  examine  what  M.  Bastiat 
puts  into  the  mouths  of  the  manufacturers  any  more  than  his 
declamations  about  spoliation.  These  last  are  the  arts  of  the 
sophist,  essentially  dishonest  and  disreputable,  and  discredit- 
able alike  to  the  author  and  to  those  who  have  made  them- 
selves his  sponsors  to  the  American  public.  Nobody  supposes 
or  affirms  that  labor  itself,  aside  from  its  products,  is  the 
deeirable  object,  so  far  as  direct  effects  upon  opulence  are 
concerned  ;  and  in  combating  such  a  proposition,  M.  Bastiat 
simply  makes  a  false  issue. 

Chapter  XXII.  is  entitled  "  Metaphors." 

In  this  chapter,  M.  Bastiat  inveighs  against  the  use  of  the 
expressions :  invasion  of  foreign  products ;  an  inundation 
of  foreign  goods  ;  paying  tribute  to  a  foreign  nation.  He  is 
quite  right  to  inveigh  against  their  use  as  arguments.  They 
are  not  arguments.  Neither  is  the  denunciation  of  their  use 
an  argument.  If  the  free-trade  doctrine  be  right,  they  are 
improperly  used,  not  being  descriptive  of  facts  ;  if  the  protec- 
tionist doctrine  be  right,  they  are  oftentimes  very  descriptive 
of  most  calamitous  facts.  Which  is  right  and  which  is  wrong 
can  never  be  ascertained  by  declamation  and  much  calling  of 
names. 

CONCLUSION. 

M.  Bastiat  sa3'S  of  his  book  :  — 

"  Among  the  sophisms  which  it  has  discussed,  each  has  undoubtedly 
its  own  formula  and  tendency,  but  all  have  a  common  root ;  and  this 
is  the  for  get  fulness  of  the  interests  of  men,  considered  as  consumers." 

M.  Bastiat  imagines  that  the  interest  of  the  consumer  is 
promoted  by  offering  him  commodities  at  a  low  price,  regard- 
less of  whether  he  has  or  has  not  anything  to  buy  with. 
The  protectionist  maintains  that  the  interest  of  the  consumer 
is  best  promoted  by  not  only  offering  him  commodities,  but 
seeing  to  it  that  he  has  the  means  of  purchasing.  If  he  can- 
not buy,  it  is  mere  trifling  to  offer  him  an  article  for  little 


REVIEW   OP   BASTIAT'S    SOPHISMS   OF   PROTECTION.  49 

money.  Give  him  the  means  of  purchase,  and  the  price  is 
comparatively  unimportant.  Scarcity  to  the  consumer  is  often 
accompanied  by  lowness  of  price ;  while  abundance  goes 
often  hand  in  hand  with  a  high  price.  M.  Bastiat  concludes 
that  he  will  be  satisfied  if  he  has  brought  the  reader  to 
doubt  — 

"  1.   The  blessings  of  scarcity. 

"  2.   The  beneficial  effects  of  obstacles. 

"  3.   The  desirableness  of  effort  without  result. 

"4.  The  inequality  of  two  equal  values  when  one  comes  from  the 
plough  and  the  other  from  the  workshop. 

"  5.  The  incompatibility  of  prosperity  with  justice,  and  of  peace  with 
liberty,  and  of  the  extension  of  labor  with  the  advance  of  intelligence  ! " 

The  protectionist  believes  that  in  the  existing  state  of  the 
world  abundance  cannot  flow  from  free  trade  ;  that  to  acquire 
abundance  a  nation  must  erect  an  obstacle  to  the  maliciously 
destructive  competition  of  a  community,  which,  having  re- 
duced its  own  labor  to  misery,  can  and  will,  if  permitted, 
bring  others  down  to  its  level.  Protection  does  not  maintain 
that  effort  without  result  is  desirable,  but  only  that  it  is 
desirable  to  enlarge  the  field  in  which  effort  is  possible,  so  far 
at  least  as  to  obtain  the  greatest  possible  gross  annual  product 
for  the  nation.  Protection  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  prop- 
osition tlmt  any  two  equal  values  are  unequal,  nor  with  any 
other  absurdity  ;  and,  finally,  protection  maintains  that  under 
its  system,  and  only  under  its  system,  will  prosperity  and 
justice,  peace  and  libert}^  labor  and  intelligence,  be  found  in 
accord. 

To  be  sure,  there  is  a  difference  in  the  meaning  assigned  to 
justice  and  liberty  by  M.  Bastiat  and  by  the  protectionist. 
The  latter  considers  it  just  that  the  individual,  who  prospers 
with  and  through  the  prosperity  of  the  society,  should  be 
allowed  to  follow  that  private  selfishness,  which,  if  followed 
by  all,  would  destroy  the  prosperity  of  all,  and  which  would 
cease  to  be  advantageous  to  the  individual  himself  the  moment 
others  followed  his  example  ;  but  the  protectionist  under- 
stands by  liberty,  the  liberty  of  the  whole  community  to 

7 


50  REVIEW    OF   BASTIAT's   SOPHISMS   OF  PROTECTION. 

pursue  the  course  most  advantageous  to  the  whole  community, 
the  individual  included ;  it  does  not  understand  by  liberty 
the  right  of  one  man  to  veto  and  prevent  the  efforts  of  the 
whole  for  the  good  of  the  whole,  the  individual  himself  in- 
cluded. We  have  conquered  state  rights  when  construed  to 
include  nullification ;  we  are  not  likely  then  to  allow  individ- 
ual rights  to  be  pressed  to  the  same  extreme. 

M.  Bastiat  concludes  by  charging  upon  protectionists  spolia- 
tion and  robbery,  which  is  rather  cool  in  face  of  the  facts. 
Great  Britain,  at  the  instance  of  her  manufacturing  classes, 
has  found  them  markets  by  force  wherever  she  could,  —  not- 
ably, in  China,  India,  Japan,  and  Ireland.  She  now  is  attempt- 
ing the  same  thing  by  sophism  in  France,  the  United  States, 
and  her  colonies.  She  cannot  use  force  in  the  latter  cases  ; 
but  she  can  scatter  the  specious  fallacies  of  such  writers  as 
Bastiat,  and  this  she  is  doing  with  a  free  hand. 

Part  II.  Chapter  I.  is  entitled  "  Natural  History  of 
Spoliation," 

In  this  chapter  the  evils  of  war,  robbery,  slavery,  and  mo- 
nopoly are  enlarged  upon,  and  the  protectionist  policy  is  then 
quietly  classed  with  the  rest  as  being  monopoly.  This,  too, 
addressed  to  thirty  millions  of  Frenchmen  ;  and,  now,  ad- 
dressed to  fifty  millions  of  Americans,  every  one  of  whom  is 
free  to  go  into  any  of  the  trades  or  manufactures  enjoying 
the  monopoly.     Good  rhetoric,  only  untruthful  and  deceitful. 

Chapter  II.,  —  "  Two  Systems  of  Morals." 

This  chapter  explains  that  economical  morality  (that  is, 
free  trade)  does  not  exclude  religious  morality,  which  may 
still  find  something  to  do  in  the  world  !  This  is  fortunate 
for  religious  morality  ! 

Chapter  III.,  —  "  The  Two  Hat'chets." 

This  is  the  same  wearisome  untruth  once  more  :  a  car- 
penter is  represented  as  holding  forth  that  by  means  of  the 
protective  laws  he  is  robbed  of  half  his  earnings,  and  so  he 
asks  for  a  law  that  only  dull  hatchets  be  used  so  that  the 


REVIEW   OF   BASTIAT's   SOPHISMS   OP  PROTECTION.  51 

amount  of  carpenters'  work  should  be  doubled.  In  such 
mixed  fabrics  of  exaggeration  and  absurdity,  M.  Bastiat  stands 
easily  first.  Nobody  proposes  any  sort  of  protection  which 
will  diminish  the  efficiency  of  labor,  or  which  will  other  than 
augment  the  national  gross  annual  product.  Nobody  believes 
that  half  of  a  French  carpenter's  wages  are  taken  away  by 
protection  ;  although  it  is  very  possible  and  probable  that 
free  trade  w^ould  diminish  them  one  half. 

Chapter  IV.,  — "  Inferior  Council  of  Labor." 

Here  laborers,  blacksmiths,  and  carpenters  are  represented 
as  declaring  that  they  pay  more  for  bread,  meat,  sugar,  thread, 
etc.,  on  account  of  the  tariff. 

They  would  like  to  get  their  bread  and  meat,  their  sugar 
and  thread,  everything  they  eat,  drink,  clothe,  or  warm  them- 
selves with,  from  foreign  countries ;  and  suppose  that,  under 
such  circumstances,  there  would  be  abundant  French  cus- 
tomers for  tailors  and  blacksmiths. 

The  unmeasured  and  incredible  audacity  of  M.  Bastiat 
makes  any  sober  answer  difficult. 

He  pretends  to  believe  that  all  laborers  having  carefully 
considered  their  position  might  rationally  come  to  the  con- 
clusion that  they  found  relevancy  in  the  proposition  that 
"  It  is  better  to  support  one's  self,  surrounded  by  well-to-do 
neighbors,  than  to  be  protected  in  the  midst  of  poverty." 
He  feigns  to  believe  that  well-to-do  neighbors  will  be  gen- 
erated by  a  system  which  proposes  to  an  idle  population  to 
buy  everything  where  it  is  cheapest.  Buy !  What  is  a  man 
to  buy  with  who  has  nothing  to  do  ?  He  fancied  that  the 
amount  of  labor  employed  depended  upon  capital.  He  did 
not  know  that  quite  another  cause  mastered  or  limited  first 
the  accumulation  of  capital  and  then  the  employment  of 
laborers.  What  other  cause?  The  extent  of  the  field  of 
mutually  satisfying  desires.  The  community  as  a  whole  offers 
to  the  community  as  a  whole  —  wheat.  There  are  individ- 
uals who  desire  more  wheat  than  they  use  ;  but  they  have  not 
the  means  of  buying  it.  Why?  Because  they  produce  noth- 
ing the  community  desires  in  exchange  for  wheat.     Let  these 


52  REVIEW    OF   BASTIAT's    SOPHISMS    OP    PROTECTION. 

wishers  for  wheat  discover  a  new  convenience,  or  a  new  ser- 
vice for  which  others  have  a  desire,  and  the  satisfaction  of  the 
new  desire  will  give  wheat  to  those  who  before  were  sighing 
in  vain  for  it.  More  still ;  the  sale  of  an  additional  quantity 
of  wheat  will  enable  the  grower  of  wheat  to  satisfy  perhaps 
some  before  unsatisfied  desire.  The  newly  discovered  or 
invented  want  is  seized  upon  by  labor  and  by  capital  (both  of 
which  are  normally  in  excess  in  a  community  where  diver- 
sified employments  exist),  and  the  field  of  employment  is 
permanently  enlarged.  The  community  as  a  whole  produces 
more  than  before,  and  so  there  is  more  to  divide.  Wages, 
profits,  rents,  all  rise  together.  Not  so  when  the  people,  seduced 
by  witless  manipulators  of  words,  adopt  the  free-trade  pana- 
cea. "  Let  us  buy  in  the  cheapest  market,"  say  they.  "  Let 
us  get  our  cotton  and  metal  fabrics  from  England,  our  woollen 
goods  from  Germany,  our  coal  from  Nova  Scotia,  our  sugar 
from  the  West  Indies,  our  hemp  and  tallow  from  Russia,  our 
lumber  from  Canada,  our  wool  from  Australia."  Here  are 
industries  which  respond  to  what  now  (1881)  amount  to,  say, 
over  twelve  hundred  millions  of  dollars  of  annual  wants  in 
the  United  States,  the  satisfaction  of  which  supports  a  pop- 
ulation whose  demand  for  the  productions  of  other  industries 
creates  a  market  to  an  equal  amount. 

Transferring  these  industries  to  foreign  nations  would  re- 
duce the  purchasing  power  of  the  United  States  by  twelve 
hundred  millions  of  dollars,  would  diminish  the  gross  annual 
product,  the  fund  out  of  which  all  wages,  all  profits,  all  rents 
are  paid  by  that  amount,  which  means  by  one  sixth  part. 
But  this  is  not  the  worst.  The  foreign  markets,  oppressed  with 
an  additional  twelve  hundred  millions  of  our  products,  would 
refuse  them,  except  at  a  greatly  reduced  price,  and  we  should 
find  that  many  of  the  remaining  unscalped  industries  would 
graduall}^  die  out  for  want  of  a  market.  The  over-anxious 
manufacturer,  clutching  after  a  foreign  market,  would  find 
himself  bereft  of  a  market  ten  times  greater  at  home  ;  the 
clergyman,  lawyer,  physician,  who  coveted  cheap  clothes  with 
ample  incomes,  would  find  the  people  too  poor  to  pay  the  ample 
incomes.    The  carpenter,  blacksmith,  mason,  painter,  paperer, 


REVIEW   OF   BASTIAT's   SOPHISMS   OF   PROTECTION.  53 

etc.,  who  had  been  told  that  "  houses  were  never  imported," 
would  find  out,  to  their  cost,  that  houses  were  built  in  propor- 
tion to  the  means  of  the  community.  The  owner  of  railroad 
stock,  bank  stock,  manufacturing  stock,  of  houses,  of  stores, 
of  forges,  of  farms,  would  find  out  at  last  that  they  were  in 
the  same  boat  as  the  day  laborer,  and  that  they  could  not 
thrive  while  he  starved. 

Chapter  V.,  —  "  Dearness  —  Cheapness." 

Here  is  only  a  repetition  of  the  old  fallacy  which  teaches 
an  individual  who  has  worlv  for  only  four  days  out  of  six, 
that  he  will  become  rich  faster  by  spending  a  portion  of  his 
four  days'  earnings  to  buy  than  he  will  by  keeping  all  his 
earnings  and  doing  for  himself  during  the  unemployed  two 
days  that  which  he  requires  to  have  done  ;  and  which  teaches 
a  nation  that  it  will  become  rich  by  buying  at  a  cheap  price 
what  its  unemploj'ed  labor  and  capital  can  make  for  nothing. 
Here  also  is  a  repetition  of  inveracious  assumption,  as  fol- 
lows :  — 

"  Therefore  the  question,  the  eternal  question,  is  not  whether  protec- 
tion favors  this  or  that  special  branch  of  industry,  but  whether,  all  things 
considered,  restriction  is,  in  its  nature,  more  profitable  than  freedom. 

'■'■Now  no  person  can  maintain  that  proposition.  And  just  this 
explains  the  admission  which  our  opponents  continually  make  to  us  : 
'  You  are  riglit^  on  principle.^  " 

As  before  observed,  some  protectionists,  feeling  themselves 
unable  to  unravel  all  the  innumerable  Protean,  "  Achilles  and 
Tortoise  "  puzzles  which  men  like  Bastiat  propound,  may  have 
found  refuge  in  the  absurdity  of  saying,  "  So  and  so  may 
be  good  in  theory,  but  is  not  good  in  practice  ;  "  but  it  is  not 
the  refuge  of  any  protectionist  who  has  the  time  and  patience 
to  follow  up  and  refute  a  hundred  times  over  the  parroted 
fallacies  of  free  trade. 

There  is  nothing  new  in  Chapter  V.  It  is  only  a  repetition 
of  positions  and  assumptions  already  over  and  over  again 
refuted. 

Chapter  VI.,  —  "  To  Artisans  and  Laborers." 

Here  is  more  repetition.     Tariff  duties  are  a  tax,  therefore 


54         REVIEW  OP  bastiat's  sophisms  op  protection. 

they  are  of  the  same  nature  as  all  other  taxes.     This  is  like 
the  syllogism  with  four  terms  which  runs  thus  :  — 

Files  are  instruments  made  of  steel. 

A  regiment  marching  in  regular  order  is  composed  of  files. 
Therefore  a  regiment  marching  in  regular  order  is   com- 
posed of  instruments  made  of  steel. 

Some  taxes  take  money  from  the  people  and  give  nothing 
in  return. 

Tariff  duties  are  taxes. 

Therefore  tariff  duties  take  money  from  the  people  and 
give  nothing  in  return. 

Such  is  free-trade  logic!  Professors  who  write  books  upon 
political  economy  would  do  well  to  have  their  manuscripts 
examined  by  their  fellow-professors  who  teach  the  science  of 
logic,  before  they  stereotype  their  productions. 

Again  M.  Bastiat  says  :  — 

"  I  believe  that  we  can  call  that  the  natural  rate  of  wages  which 
would  establish  itself  naturally,  if  there  were  fi-eedom  of  trade.  Then, 
when  they  tell  you  that  restriction  is  for  your  benefit,  it  is  as  if  they 
told  you  that  it  added  a  surplus  to  your  natural  wages.  Now,  an 
extra  natural  surplus  of  wages  must  be  taken  from  somewhere  :  it  does 
not  fall  from  the  moon  ;  it  must  be  taken  from  those  who  pay  it. 

"  You  are  then  brought  to  this  conclusion,  that,  according  to  your 
preteuded  friends,  the  protective  system  has  been  created  and  brought 
into  the  world  in  order  that  capitalists  might  be  sacrificed  to  laborers. 

"  Tell  me,  is  that  probable  ?  " 

That  is  to  say,  M.  Bastiat,  whose  work  has  been  translated 
from  the  French  by  the  Free  Trade  League  in  order  "  to 
educate  public  opinion  ;  to  convince  the  people  of  the  United 
States  of  the  folly  and  wrongfulness  of  the  protective  system," 
—  this  M.  Bastiat  did  not  know  that  a  fully  occupied  people 
and  capital  would  produce  a  greater  mass  of  commodities 
than  they  would  produce  if  a  third  or  a  half  of  them  were 
unemplo3^ed.  He  did  not  know  that  a  large  annual  product 
gave  much  to  be  divided  between  wages,  profits,  and  rent ; 
and  he  did  not  know  that  the  portions  falling  to  profits  and 


REVIEW   OF   BASTIAT's   SOPHISMS   OF   PROTECTION.  55 

rent  were  nearly  all  distributed  again  to  labor.  He  did  not 
know  that  not  only  the  recipients  of  profits  and  rent,  but 
still  more  the  recipients  of  wages,  were  supremely  interested 
that  the  gross  annual  product  should  be  the  greatest  possible, 
and  that  this  desirable  result  was  not  to  be  obtained  by  sitting 
idle  and  buying  cheap  goods  of  other  nations. 

But  in  spite  of  this  ignorance,  M.  Bastiat  was  selected  as 
the  best  teacher  of  political  economy  which  the  League 
could  find  for  the  people  of  the  United  States. 

One  can  imagine  the  grim  humor  with  which  the  clear- 
headed workmen  of  the  United  States  no  doubt  contemplate 
the  condescension  of  the  League. 

Chapter  VII.,  —  "  A  Chinese  Story." 

This  is  the  obstacle  fallacy  over  again. 

The  free-traders  discovered  that  obstacles,  many  of  them, 
were  the  cause  of  expense,  or  that  their  existence  increased 
the  cost  of  commodities,  without  in  any  way  increasing  the 
gross  product,  or  means  of  payment.  They  then  discovered 
that  a  duty  upon  imported  articles  increased —sometimes  — 
the  price  of  similar  articles  produced  in  the  country.  We  say 
sometimes,  for  Bastiat  himself  admits  that  they  do  not  always 
do  so  ;  and  the  fact  is  notorious  that  they  do  not  do  so  for  any 
considerable  length  of  time,  to  nearly  the  amount  of  the  duty, 
and  that  they  often,  by  stimulating  home  skill  and  competi- 
tion, cause  a  lower  price  than  existed  before.  Never  mind  ! 
they  are  an  obstacle  to  importation,  so  they  are  obstacles  ;  and 
by  simply  calling  them  obstacles,  pure  and  simple,  it  is  made 
to  appear  that  they  are  not  only  obstacles  to  importation,  but 
also  obstacles  to  opulence.  They  are  obstacles ;  so  also  are  fens, 
mountains,  stormy  seas,  distance,  obstructed  canals,  bad  tools, 
etc.,  etc.  The  last.being  seen  to  be  really  obstacles  to  opulence, 
the  free-traders  jump  you  to  the  conclusion  that  everything 
called  an  obstacle  is  an  obstacle  to  opulence.  Several  phe- 
nomena called  obstacles  being  seen  to  be  really  obstacles  to 
opulence,  inasmuch  as  they  raise  the  price  without  augment- 
ing the  national  product,  everything  called  by  the  same  name 
is  inferred  to  be  of  the  same  effect.     Those  obstacles  increase 


66  REVIEW   OF   BASTIAT's   SOPHISMS   OF   PROTECTION. 

» 

the  cost  in  labor,  say,  25  per  cent ;  this  obstacle  —  the  duty  — 
also  (we  will  suppose  for  the  sake  of  argument),  raises  the 
cost  in  labor  25  per  cent.  They  are,  then,  exactly  alike  ! 
and  so  they  are,  thus  far,  or  rather  in  these  particulars  ;  but 
in  the  important  particular  they  are  exactly  opposite.  Those 
obstacles  increase  the  cost  in  labor  of  everything,  —  of  that 
which  it  is  desirable  to  import  as  well  as  of  that  which  it  is 
not  desirable  to  import.  This  obstacle  does  not  lay  a  finger 
upon  the  importation  of  tropical  products  which  our  climate 
cannot  produce,  does  not  prevent  or  render  more  difficult 
immigration,  travel,  the  personal  inspection  of  foreign  arts 
and  sciences  and  social  organization  ;  but  it  does  prevent  that 
industrial  competition  which  makes  it  impossible  for  us  to 
acquire  such  arts  as  we  are  perfectly  able  to  acquire,  and 
which  both  during  the  process  of  acquisition  and  thenceforth, 
forever,  will  add  to  the  gross  annual  product  of  the  nation, 
which  is  the  same  thing  precisely  as  the  aggregate  net  indi- 
vidual income. 

This  obstacle  also  discriminates  and  shuts  out  those  prod- 
ucts in  which  foreign  nations  excel  only  by  reason  of  the 
lower  rate  of  wages  and  by  the  introduction  of  which  our 
owft  existing  system  of  civilization  (based  as  it  is,  npon  a 
high  scale  of  remuneration  to  labor  of  every  sorf)  would  be  im- 
paired if  not  entirely  overthrown.  The  duty  is  a  discriminating 
obstacle  in  which  all  that  is  good  in  the  natural  obstacles 
is  retained,  and  all  that  is  bad  is  discarded  ;  this  opposes 
baneful  intercourse  ;  those  oppose  alike  every  kind  of  inter- 
course, the  benignant  as  well  and  as  much  as  the  baneful;  this 
is  an  obstacle  reared  by  human  intelligence  for  a  definite 
purpose ;  those  are  obstacles  arising  out  of  the  constitution 
of  the  world.  A  mind  may  be  presumed  to  have  been 
given  to  man  to  enable  him  to  discriminate  between  dif- 
ferent things,  even  when  called  by  the  same  name.  Even 
a  free-trader  can  perceive  that  there  is  a  difference  between 
a  file  of  soldiers  and  a  file  of  a  carpenter ;  by  and  by  perhaps 
they  may  develop  sufficiently  to  see  that  there  is  a  difference 
between  a  tax  which  simply  takes  a  dollar,  and  a  tax  which, 
where  it  takes  a  dollar,  gives  five ;  and  they  may  grow  to 


REVIEW   OP   BASTIAT's   SOPHISMS   OP   PROTECTION.  57 

see  that  there  is  a  difference  between  an  obstacle  which 
simply  obstructs  and  an  obstacle  which  overcomes  and  annihi- 
lates a  far  greater  obstruction. 

Chapter  VIII.,  —  '•'•Post  hoc^  ergo  propter  hocr 

The  free-traders  say,  "  See  how  prosperous  England  has 
been  since  she  adopted  free  trade  !  "  They  exaggerate  every 
picture  of  her  wealth,  wink  out  of  sight  the  panics  of  1866 
and  1873,  with  their  attendant  horrors,  point  to  the  indus- 
trial troubles  in  the  United  States  in  1873-1879,  but  say 
nothing  about  the  sufScient  cause  of  a  contraction  in  the 
currency,  the  like  of  which  worked  far  greater  mischief  in 
1819  in  England  ;  say  nothing,  either,  of  the  wonderful  re- 
covery of  the  United  States  under  a  higher  tariff  in  1879-80; 
say  nothing  about  the  prosperity  of  France  since  1815,  —  far 
more  astonishing  than  that  of  England.  They  say  nothing 
about  the  advantages  that  England  has  derived  from  invest- 
ments in  protectionist  countries.     No  ! 

England  adopted  free  trade. 

Post  hoc,  England  showed  some  very  decided  evidences  of 
prosperity.  Ergo,  the  prosperity,  such  as  it  was,  came  from 
free  trade. 

Chapter  IX.,—  "  Robbery  by  Bounties." 

Here  we  have  the  public  duped  ;  the  public  robbed,  — 
robbed  by' tariff,  robbed  by  bounties,  robbed  by  fraud,  robbed 
by  force,  etc.  In  fact,  the  chapter  may  be  called  a  war-dance  to 
the  tunes  of  robbing,  cheating,  pillaging,  stealing,  swindling, 
monopoly,  etc.  Those  who  mistake  abuse  for  syllogism  can 
read  it,  no  doubt,  with  amusement.  There  are,  moreover,  two 
really  funny  things  in  it.  One  where  M.  Bastiat  says:  "They 
find  my  little  book  of  Sophisms  too  theoretical,  scientific, 
and  metaphysical !  "  The  other  is  where  he  says :  "  More 
than  sixty  years  ago  Adam  Smith  said,  '  When  manufac- 
turers meet  it  may  be  expected  that  a  conspiracy  will  be 
planned  against  the  pockets  of  the  public'  " 

Did  M.  Bastiat  suppose  the  world  was  ignorant  of  the  fact 
that  the  free-trade  measures  adopted  in  Great  Britain  were 

8v 


68         REVIEW  OP  bastiat's  sophisms  op  protection. 

adopted  at  the  suggestion  of  a  cabal  of  manufacturers  ;  that 
they  were  designed  to  forward  the  interests  of  that  class  at 
the  expense  of  the  landed  aristocracy  and  the  people  alike, 
and  that  they  were  forced  through  by  the  most  lavish  use 
of  money  to  promote  publications,  meetings,  addresses,  dis- 
tribution of  pamphlets,  etc.,  etc.,  and  that  they  prolonged  the 
sacrifice  of  India,  Ireland,  and,  for  a  time,  the  colonies,  to 
Manchester  ? 

The  same  system  is  now  being  applied  to  the  United  States. 
Pamphlets  and  books  are  being  distributed  by  the  m^aiad, 
and  these  wily  manufacturers  of  Manchester,  etc.,  would  per- 
suade us  that  they  are  taking  all  this  trouble  and  going  to 
all  this  expense  to  free  us  from  American  monopolists  !  If 
there  be  an  irrepressible  contest  between  American  monopo- 
lists and  English  monopolists,  and  if  (as  Adam  Smith  and 
Bastiat  would  have  us  believe)  they  are  all  rascals,  then  the 
American  people  are  very  likely  to  rally  to  the  support  of 
their  own  rascals.  These  at  least  can  be  reached  by  the  law 
and  by  competition  ;  and  whatever  they  do  make  must  at  all 
events  be  either  spent  or  invested  in  the  United  States, 
and,  in  either  case,  gets  at  last  into  the  hands  of  those  who 
work. 

Chapter  X.,—  "  The  Tax  Collector." 

The  tax  collector  takes  six  out  of  twenty  hogsheads  of 
wine,  which  Jacques  Bonhomme,  wine  grower,  has  produced 
with  much  care  and  sweat. 

The  first  goes  to  the  creditors  of  the  state,  the  second  goes 
to  the  civil  service,  two  go  to  the  army  and  navy,  the  fifth 
goes  to  Algeria,  the  sixth  goes  in  bounty  to  encourage  man- 
ufactures. There  are  fourteen  hogsheads  left,  and  Jacques 
Bonhomme  is  assured  that  these  will  buy  only  half  as  much 
as  they  would  if  he,  good  man,  could  be  allowed  to  buy 
everything  from  the  foreigner.  There  is  the  same  confusion 
about  taxes  which  do,  and  those  which  do  not,  lead  to  an 
increase  of  the  nation's  annual  product,  which  we  have  before 
noticed,  and  the  same  exaggeration  which  runs  through  the 
whole  book.    English  iron  is  cheap  when  it  is  not  in  demand. 


REVIEW   OF   BASTIAT'S   SOPHISMS   OF   PROTECTION.  59 

M.  Bastiat  assumes  that  it  will  be  just  as  cheap  when  France 
and  the  United  States  and  all  the  rest  of  the  world  are 
clamoring  for  it.  The  wine  grower  is  advised  to  buy  every- 
thing abroad  which  can  be  made  cheaper  there,  but  he  is  not 
told  that  there  would  soon  under  such  a  regiwe  be  few  able 
to  buy  his  wine. 

Chapter  XL,  —  "  Utopian  Ideas." 

This  chapter  is  based  upon  the  assumption  that  the  just  and 
the  useful  must  agree.  Very  likely  they  must ;  but  never- 
theless it  may  be  that  the  author  has  a  mistaken  idea  of 
what  is  just  and  an  equally  mistaken  idea  of  what  is  useful. 
He  assumes  that  an  individual  has  an  undoubted  right  to  do 
whatever  he  pleases  with  that  which  he  acquires  in  the  com- 
munity. It  is  just,  according  to  M.  Bastiat,  for  him  to  benefit 
by  the  advantages  growing  out  of  the  association,  but  at  the 
same  time  to  refuse  to  act  in  that  manner  which  the  association 
finds  to  be  essential  to  the  interests  of  all,  himself  included. 
It  is  just  not  only  because  a  man  has  a  right  to  do  Avhat  he 
pleases  with  his  own,  but  also  because  by  the  providence  of 
God  this  world  has  been  so  arranged  that  the  blind  instincts 
of  every  uninstructed  individual,  seeking  only  his  own  advan- 
tage, necessarily  lead  him  to  the  very  acts  which  best  pro- 
mote the  interests  of  the  whole  community.  The  individual 
instinct  of  every  man,  however  ignorant,  selfish,  and  gross,  is 
surer  than  the  judgment  and  reason  of  all  men,  including  all 
statesmen  and  philosophers. 

This  is  an  extraordinary  proposition  indeed.  It  is  not  self- 
evident.  It  must  then  have  been  arrived  at  by  induction,  or 
deduction,  or  both  ;  and  in  point  of  fact  we  find  that  it  was 
first  put  forth  by  Adam  Smith  in  the  second  chapter  of  the 
fourth  book  of  the  "  Enquiry  into  the  Nature  and  Causes  of 
the  Wealth  of  Nations."  He  thought  that  men,  in  some  cases, 
when  pursuing  their  own  interests,  did  at  the  same  time  pro- 
mote the  interest  of  the  nation.  The  cases  he  adduced  were 
very  uncertain,  it  being  by  no  means  sure  that  men  would  act 
as  he  imagined  ;  by  no  means  certain  that  among  the  manifold 
motives  of  man,  Adam  Smith  did  really  select  those  which 


60  REVIEW   OP   BASTIAT's   SOPHISMS   OF   PROTECTION. 

would  prevail  in  the  eases  imagined.  But  never  mind  ;  they 
suited  his  purpose,  and  he  jumped  his  readers  to  the  con- 
clusion that  in  "these  as  in  many  cases  the  individuals  were 
led  by  an  invisible  hand  to  promote  an  end  which  was  no  part 
of  their  intention."  It  will  be  observed  that  with  Adam  Smith 
this  was  little  more  than  a  pretty  piece  of  rhetoric  ;  and  in 
other  parts  of  his  work  he  affirms  most  vehemently  that  the 
private  interests  of  large  classes  are  adverse  to  the  interests 
of  the  community  as  a  whole  ;  but  a  pretty  piece  of  rhetoric 
is  as  good  as  the  strongest  syllogism  to  the  man  who  was  not 
born  with  the  ability  to  reason,  and  has  never  acquired  the 
ability  through  education.  Everybody  who  knows  the  can- 
ons of  inductive  logic  is  aware  that  a  single  negative  instance 
absolutely  forbids  the  forming  of  such  a  "  general  proposition  ; " 
and  everybody  who  has  read  enough  of  political  economy  to 
warrant  writing  upon  the  subject,  knows  that  the  negative 
instances  with  respect  to  this  proposition  are  innumerable. 
The  proposition  belongs  to  the  domain  of  noodledom,  — 

"  A  limbo  large  and  broad,  since  called 
The  Paradise  of  Fools."  Millon. 

And  yet  such  is  the  looseness  with  which  political  economy 
is  treated  that  writers  of  some  authority  refer  to  it  as  if  it 
actually  carried  weight  into  the  discussions  upon  free  trade 
and  protection.  If,  then,  M.  Bastiat  is  in  error  as  to  what  is 
■useful,  he  may  be  equally  in  error  as  to  what  is  just ;  and  it 
may  turn  out  that  justice  and  utility  do  agree  and  go  hand 
in  hand ;  only  they  are  not  what  he  calls  justice  and  utility, 
but  something  very  different. 

Chapter  XIII.,  — "The  Three  Aldermen." 

This  is  a  delightful  piece  of  persiflage.  The  introduction 
into  Paris  of  three  industries  totally  unsuited  to  the  place  is 
described,  and  to  this  absurd  imagining  are  applied  the  argu- 
ments which  are  justly  and  properly  used  in  favor  of  the 
introduction  into  a  nation  of  industries  for  which  it  has 
every  natural  advantage,  and  in  favor  of  maintaining  them  so 
long  as  their  products  will  in  the  end  cost  less  (in  labor  and 
abt>tinence)  than  similar  products  brought  from  abroad.    This 


REVIEW  OF  BASTIAT'S  SOPHISMS   OF   PROTECTION.  61 

is  the  case  of  the  United  States  v.  Great  Britain,  and  it  is  as 
an  argument  applicable  to  this  case  that  the  "  Sophisms  "  of 
Bastiat  are  presented  to  the  people  of  the  United  States. 

An  individual  becomes  wealthy  by  acquiring  from  others 
a  portion  of  the  already  existing  instruments  of  production. 
He  may  acquire  enough  to  support  him  a  thousand  years.  A 
nation  can  do  nothing  of  the  kind.  It  becomes  wealthy  in 
proportion  to  the  increase  of  its  annual  product  of  commod- 
ities. But  its  annual  product  must  be  annually  consumed, 
even  that  portion  of  it  which  is  saved ;  that  is  to  say,  the 
portion  which  is  converted  by  labor  into  instruments  to  facil- 
itate and  enlarge  future  production  and  comfort.  It  must  be 
consumed,  or  else  it  lies  in  immoderate  stocks,  paralyzing 
industry.  Taking  the  average  of  years,  it  is  consumed.  The 
richest  nation  then  is  the  one  whicli  first  produces  and  then 
consumes  the  largest  annual  product  of  commodities;  and 
here  we  stumble  headlong  upon  a  most  vital  proposition, 
which  is,  that  the  richest  nation  is  that  in  which  the  great 
bulk  of  the  people,  the  workers  with  hands  and  the  workers 
with  brains,  enjoy  the  highest  real  wages. ^ 

What,  then,  can  come  of  the  plans  which  are  built  upon 
a  reduction  of  the  real  wages  of  a  people  ?  Inevitable 
national  impoverishment.  The  gross  annual  product  pays 
all  wages,  all  profits,  all  rents.  Increase  it,  —  they  all  in- 
crease.    Diminish  it,  and  they  all  dwindle  away  together. 

Chapter  XIV.,  —  "  Something  Else." 

Here  are  twelve  pages  of  puerilities  which  are,  nevertheless, 
specious,  and  must  be  dealt  with,  even  at  the  risk  of  weary- 
ing the  reader. 

"  Restriction  and  prohibition,"  says  M.  Bastiat,  "  bear  the  same 
relation  to  one  another  that  an  arc  bears  to  a  circle.  One  cannot  be 
bad  and  the  other  good,  any  more  than  an  arc  can  be  straight  if  the 
circle  be  curved." 

Straight  and  curved,  mathematical  terms  signifying  the 
same  tbings  under  all  possible  circumstances,  cannot,  accord- 
ing to  M.  Bastiat,  be  predicated  with  any  more  certainty  of 
a  line,  than  the  words  good  and  bad  can  be  predicated  of 
restriction  and  prohibition  in  political  economy. 

1  See  note  4,  page  79. 


62  REVIEW   OF   BASTIAT's   SOPHISMS   OP   PROTECTION. 

It  is  only  necessary  to  show  a  single  class  of  cases  in 
which  prohibition  would  be  bad  and  restriction  good,  and 
the  thinness  of  M.  Bastiat's  supposed  logic  will  be  apparent ; 
and  it  is  not  necessary  that  the  case  adduced  should  abso- 
lutely exist.     It  is  sufficient  that  it  might  exist. 

Well,  then,  there  might  be  two  countiies  which  produced 
silk  piece  goods.  Call  the  countries  A  and  B.  In  A  the 
rate  of  wages  is  only  one  half  what  it  is  in  B,  but  for  reasons 
which  seem  satisfactory  to  the  people  generally  it  is  con- 
sidered to  be  both  desirable  to  maintain  the  rate  of  wages  in 
B  and  also  to  maintain  the  manufacture  of  silk  goods.  Evi- 
dently the  manufacturers  must  be  protected  sufficiently  to 
offset  the  difference  of  wages.  This  is  one  case  ;  and,  to 
prevent  the  free-trader  from  making  a  specious  although 
unsound  cavil,  let  us  look  at  another  possible  case.  Nation 
B,  by  reason  of  improvements  in  the  application  of  its  labor 
and  the  efficiency  of  it,  can  weave  silk  even  a  little  cheaper 
than  nation  A  ;  but  the  manufacturers  in  nation  A,  being 
vastly  richer  than  those  in  nation  B,  can  (and  do,  whenever 
they  have  a  chance)  sell  at  a  loss,  in  order  to  destroy  the 
manufacturers  in  nation  B,  and  thereafter  be  free  to  charge 
their  own  prices.  In  this  case,  also,  it  would  be  necessary 
to  give  such  protection  as  would  overcome  the  existing  obsta- 
cle to  the  maintenance  of  the  silk  industry  in  nation  A. 
Here,  then,  restriction  would  be  good,  Avhile  prohibition  might 
be  good,  bad,  or  indifferent,  according  to  circumstances.  IF 
(as  alleged  by  free-traders  to  be  sometimes  the  case)  the  silk 
manufacturers  in  nation  B  were  lazy  and  unenterprising, 
using  inferior  machinery,  and  consequently  turning  out  silk 
piece  goods  at  an  unnecessarily  high  price,  — if,  we  say,  this 
were  the  case,  then  prohibition  would  be  bad,  and  too  high 
a  duty  would  be  bad ;  while  some  duty  would  be  good,  as 
preventing  the  demolition  by  foreigners  of  an  industry  de- 
sired by  the  people. 

Let,  now,  the  Free  Trade  League  show  a  case  wdiere  an 
arc  of  a  circle  is  a  straight  line,  or  else  confess  that  M. 
Bastiat's  reasoning  is  flippant  and  unworthy  to  be  offered  to 
the  American  people. 


REVIEW   OF   BASTIAT's   SOPHISMS    OF    PROTECTION.  63 

Again,  ]\I.  Bastiat  declares  that  the  definite  effect  of  pro- 
tection is  to  require  from  men  harder  labor  for  the  same  result. 
Let  us  see  how  this  is  made  out,  in  respect  to  the  United 
States,  for  the  education  (!)  of  whose  people  this  and  other 
books  of  a  similar  character  are  distributed.  Mr.  Mongredien, 
writino;  for  the  Cobden  Club,  shows  us  the  method.  The 
cost  of  American  manufactured  products,  he  says,  is  40 
per  cent  above  the  cost  at  which  similar  products  can  be 
imported.  Why?  Because  the  duty  is  40  per  cent  and 
over,  and  in  spite  of  the  duty  some  goods  are  imported. 
That  is,  if  some  kinds  of  goods  can  be  imported  in  spite  of 
a  duty  of  40  per  cent,  then  the  native  goods  (if  there  be  any 
of  the  same  kind)  must  cost  40  per  cent  more  than  they 
could  be  imported  for.  Then  some  goods  (those  of  which 
the  like  are  imported)  cost  40  per  cent  more  by  reason  of  the 
duty.  Therefore  all  goods  on  which  there  is  a  duty 
(those  kinds  which  are  not  imported  as  well  as  those  which 
are)  must  cost  40  per  cent  more  than  they  could  be  imported 
for! 

From  deductive  reasoning  one  would  have  supposed  that 
the  internal  competition  of  fifty  millions  of  people  might, 
perhaps,  reduce  prices  considerably  below  the  maximum 
possible  price ;  and  a  little  inquiry  as  to  facts  would  have 
shown  that  a  large  part  of  American  products  are  actually 
as  cheap,  or  very  nearly  as  cheap  as  they  could  be  imported 
for,  even  if  there  were  no  duty. 

But  Mr.  Mongredien  preferred  to  ascertain  the  cost  by 
logic  ;  and  he  told  the  American  farmers  they  could  have  for 
one  thousand  millions  of  dollars  from  England  what  they 
paid  fourteen  hundred  millions  for  to  the  native  me- 
chanics and  manufacturers.  The  farmers  being  about  half 
the  population,  the  whole  country  would  save  eight  hundred 
millions,  getting  from  England  for  two  thousand  millions 
what  they  now  pay  twenty-eight  hundred  millions  for ; 
and  all  this  built  upon  a  syllogism  in  which  a  distributed 
conclusion  is  drawn  from  undistributed  premises.  Would 
it  not  be  well  for  the  Cobden  Club  to  send  Mr.  Mongredien 
to  school  for  a  year  or  two  before   allowing   him  to  write 


64         REVIEW  OP  bastiat's  sophisms  of  protection. 

another  book  for  the  instruction  of  the  American  people? 
But  to  return  to  M.  Btxstiat.  The  Free  Trade  League, 
through  him,  tell  the  American  people  that  the  definite 
result  of  protection  is  to  require  from  men  harder  labor  for 
the  same  result.  This  inference  is  founded  upon  the  well- 
known  "  Fallacy  of  Division,"  of  which  Archbishop  Whately 
observes  :  — 

"  This  is  a  fallacy  with  which  men  are  extremely  apt  to  deceive 
themselves ;  for,  when  a  multitude  of  particulars  are  presented  to  the 
mind,  many  are  too  weak,  or  too  indolent,  to  take  a  comprehensive 
view  of  them ;  but  confine  their  attention  to  a  single  point  in  turn, 
and  then  decide,  infer,  and  act,  accordingly ;  e.  g.  the  imprudent 
spendthrift,  finding  that  he  is  able  to  afford  this,  or  that,  or  the  other 
expense,  forgets  that  all  of  them  together  will  ruin  him." 

M.  Bastiat,  referring  to  France,  maintains  that  iron,  being 
produced  in  England  for  less  labor  and  'abstinence  than  in 
France,  had  better  be  bought  by  France  by  means  of  some 
product  in  which  she  has  an  advantage  ;  then  clothing  had 
better  be  bought  in  a  similar  way  of  Belgium ;  tlien  food  of 
Hungary  or  the  United  States;  and  so  on,  forgetting  that 
all  the  needs  of  France  together  which  could  be  supplied 
more  cheaply  from  abroad  would  come  to  many  times  more 
than  would  the  aggregate  requirements  of  foreign  nations 
for  the  products  of  the  remaining  industries  in  which  France 
has  a  decided  advantage. 

With  regard  to  the  United  States,  the  chapter  has  no  rele- 
vancy ;  for  almost  everything  we  produce  is  produced  with 
as  little  labor  and  abstinence  as  anywhere  in  the  world.  Many 
things  can  be  brought  here  and  sold  for  less  money;  but 
this  is  because  our  wages  are  high,  and  our  labor  altogether 
so  much  more  productive  that  gold  and  silver  are  cheap  with 
us.  Were  we  to  open  our  ports  and  give  up  to  the  foreigner 
a  large  portion  of  our  "  field  of  employment,"  —  wages  and 
money-prices  would  doubtless  decline;  but  nothing  would 
be  produced  with  less  labor  and  abstinence  than  it  is  now. 
Our  foreign  market  might  be  increased  a  little  ;  but  our  home 
market  would  be  reduced  many  times  as  much  ;  and  profits, 


REVIEW   OP   BASTIAT's   SOPHISMS   OF   PROTECTION.  65 

rents,  fees,  salaries,  and  incomes  of  every  description  would 
be  diminished  in  proportion.  Why  so?  Because  the  gross 
annual  product  would  be  diminished  enormously,  and  it  is 
this  which  pays  all  wages,  profits,  and  rents.  But  wliy 
would  our  gross  annual  product  be  diminished  enormously? 
Because  nowhere  in  this  planet  could  be  found  markets  for 
four  thousand — soon  to  be  ten  thousand  —  millions  of  the 
products  in  which  we  have  an  advantage,  in  addition  to  what 
■we  now  export,  nor  could  markets  be  found  for  even  a  third 
part  of  those  vast  amounts.  We  should  not  only  rob  our- 
selves of  a  large  part  of  what  we  now  get  from  the  mechani- 
cal and  manufacturing  arts,  but  we  should  transfer  to  the 
foreigner  all  the  advantages  we -now  derive  from  agriculture. 
The  chapter  consists  chiefly  of  a  conversation  between 
Robinson  Crusoe  and  Friday,  whose  situation  was  not  at  all 
analogous  to  that  of  an  industrial  community;  and  afterwards 
of  the  doctrine  that,  when  one  of  the  industries  of  a  society 
is  given  over  to  a  foreign  country  the  displaced  labor  will 
occupy  itself  about 

SOMETHING   ELSE. 

This  conclusion  is  drawn  from  Adam  Smith's  doctrine  "  that 
each  industry  is  prevented  from  increasing  by  the  want  of 
capital ; "  it  has  no  place  in  a  world  w'here  each  industry  has 
unemployed  capital,  and  is  prevented  from  increasing  for 
want  of  a  "  field  of  employment."  In  such  a  world  the 
displaced  labor  and  capital  can  only  —  in  the  words  of  Mr. 
J.  S.  Mill  —  squeeze  out  a  living  by  competition  with  other 
labor  and  capital.  Both  the  wages  and  profits  appertaining 
to  the  remaining  industries  must  be  diminished  whenever 
one  is  given  up  to  the  foreigner,  for  the  reason  that  the  ex- 
truded industry  furnished  a  market  to  nearly  its  full  value 
for  other  products,  while  the  substituted  foreign  industry 
increases  the  foreign  demand  by  only  a  small  percentage  of 
its  amount. 

Let  us  represent  the  various  industries  (both  productive 
and  unproductive)  by  the  letters  of  the  alphabet.  A,  B,  C,  etc. 
Then   V  A  +  V  B  4-  V  C,  etc.,  may   represent   the   annual 

9 


66  EEVIETv'   OF   BASTIAt's   SOPHISMS   OF   PROTECTION. 

exchangeable  value  contributed  by  each  description  of  in- 
dustry and  each  description  of  service  to  the  gross  annual 
exchangeable  value,  and  VA-f-VB  +  VC,  etc.  =  T  A  P  ;  or, 
the  total  annual  product.  A  purchases  of  B,  C,  etc.,  portions 
of  their  annual  products  equalling  in  the  aggregate  VA, 
and  so  do  B,  C,  and  each  of  the  others.  Now  transfer 
industry  A  to  another  nation,  and  immediately  TAP  be- 
comes TAP  —  V  A ;  that  is,  the  capital  and  labor  before 
employed  by  industry  A  are  in  excess,  and  cannot  find  em- 
ployment by  spreading  themselves  through  the  other  indus- 
tries or  classes  of  service  already  fully  supplied.  A  portion 
of  the  products  of  B,  C,  D,  etc.,  must  go  abroad  to  pay  for 
the  foreign  products  which  have  displaced  industry  A.  If 
these  cost  25  per  cent  less  than  the  native,  then  a  value  equal 
to  I  V  A  will  go  abroad,  and  a  value  equal  to  ^^  V  A  will 
remain  distributed  among  B,  C,  D,  etc.,  as  stock  in  addition 
to  their  previously  existing  surplus  stocks.  There  will  be  a 
greater  or  less  glut  of  commodities  and  services  throughout 
the  society  ;  and  the  exchangeable  value  of  B,  of  C,  of  D, 
etc.,  etc.,  will  each  be  found  to  be  diminished,  probably  to  a 
greater  amount,  perhaps  to  a  much  greater  amount,  in  the 
aggregate,  than  the  i  V  A  expected  to  be  saved  by  importing 
from  abroad.  The  effective  demand,  then,  of  the  whole  com- 
munity, less  industry  A,  for  the  imported  article  at,  say,  three 
dollars,  will  be  less  than  was  the  effective  demand  of  the  same 
persons  for  the  native  article  at  four  dollars,  and  there  will  be 
also  a  necessity  for  supporting  the  labor  of  industry  A  in  idle- 
ness. This  labor  cannot  do  "something  else,"  for  everything 
else  desired  by  the  community  was  done  before  to  the  full 
extent  of  the  then  effective  demand  which  is  now  diminished  ; 
and  not  only  this,  but  production  must  be  also  lessened  in  each 
of  the  remaining  industries.  So  far  from  industry  B  having 
more  to  spend  for  the  products  of  C,  D,  E,  etc.,  industry  B 
will  find  its  own  annual  products  selling  for  less  money  than 
they  did  when  A  got  four  dollars  for  what  the  foreigner  now 
brings  for  three  dollars. 

France  "  has  the  advantage  "  of  other  nations  in  the  pro- 
duction of  many  articles  of  taste,  and  also  in  some  kinds  of 


REVIEW   OF   BASTIAT'S   SOPHISMS   OF   PROTECTION.  67 

wine.  She  exports  these  to  the  extent  of  about  six  hundred 
millions  of  dollars.  It  is  highly  improbable  that  the  opening 
of  her  ports  to  other  nations  could  cause  any  great  increase 
of  consumption  of  her  products  upon  their  part  ;  while  the 
products  which  she  produces  for  herself  at  no  advantage  or 
at  a  disadvantage  come  probably  to  three  thousand  millions. 
Evidently  she  could  not  obtain  any  considerable  increase  of 
the  articles  she  produces  at  a  disadvantage,  except  by  paying 
out  of  her  accumulations  of  treasure.  M.  Bastiat  thought 
she  would  get  the  needed  treasure  from  Peru  ;  but  this  only 
shows  that  his  education  had  been  neglected  in  the  branch  of 
arithmetic.  The  whole  of  the  annual  production  of  precious 
metals  added  to  the  whole  of  the  large  amount  accumulated 
by  France  during  the  whole  period  of  her  existence  would  not 
suffice  to  purchase  abroad  for  a  single  year  the  commodities 
which  France  makes  for  herself  at  more  or  less  disadvantage, 
compared  with  this,  that,  or  the  other  foreign  country.  As 
he  suggests,  she  might  import  treasure  from  Peru,  and  this 
would  suffice  to  buy  this  article,  or  it  would  suffice  to  buy 
that  article,  or  it  would  suffice  to  buy  the  other  article  ;  but 
when  it  comes  to  adding  all  the  articles  together,  the  insuf- 
ficiency of  the  proposed  resource  becomes  so  manifest  as  to  be 
ridiculous.  It  is  the  fallacy  of  division  fooling  with  the  lives 
and  fortunes  of  thirty-four  millions  of  people. 

Chapter  XV.  is  the  "  Little  Arsenal  of  the  Free-Trader." 
These  are  short  sentences  embodying  the  fallacies  already 
sufficiently  answered. 

Chapter  XVI.  proposes  a  number  of  funny  absurdities, 
which  M.  Bastiat  imagines  to  be  of  the  same  nature  as  pro- 
tectionist arguments  ;  but  which  only  show  that  he  either 
did  not  understand  or  did  not  choose  to  understand  the  pro- 
tectionist arguments. 

To  work  with  the  left  hand  rather  than  the  right,  to  pre- 
vent the  use  of  machinery,  to  dull  the  axes,  to  fill  up  canals, 
,etc.,  etc.,  would  not  increase  the  gross  annual  product.  To 
employ  a  portion  of  the  population  upon  industries  in  which 


68  REVIEW   OF   BASTIAT'S   SOPHISMS   OF   PROTECTION. 

the  nation  stands  at  no  advantage,  or  even  at  disadvantage, 
when  the  whole  population  cannot  be  employed  upon  the 
industries  in  which  it  has  an  advantage,  or  cannot  be  so  em- 
ployed without  throwing  away  the  natural  advantage,  would 
increase  the  gross  annual  product.  That  is  just  what  M.  Bas- 
tiat  did  iiot  know ;  and  that  is  why  his  teachings  should  not 
have  been  offered  to  the  American  people. 

Chapter  XVII.,  —  "  Supremacy  by  Labor." 
It  is  impossible  to  do  justice  to  the  sophistry  of  this  chapter 
without  quoting.     It  says  :  — 

"  As,  in  time  of  war,  supremacy  is  obtained  by  superiority  in  arms, 
can,  in  time  of  peace,  supremacy  be  secured  by  superiority  in  labor  ? 

"  This  question  is  of  the  greatest  interest,  at  a  time  when  no  one 
seems  to  doubt  that,  in  the  field  of  industry,  as  on  that  of  battle,  the 
stronger  crushes  the  weaker. 

*'  This  must  result  from  the  discovery  of  some  sad  and  discouraging 
analogy  between  labor,  which  exercises  itself  on  things,  and  violence, 
which  exercises  itself  on  men ;  for  how  could  two  things  be  identical 
in  their  effects,  if  they  were  opposed  in  their  nature  ? 

"  And  if  it  be  true  that,  in  manufacturing,  as  in  war,  supremacy  is 
the  necessary  result  of  superiority,  why  need  we  occupy  ourselves 
with  progress,  or  social  economy,  since  we  are  in  a  world  where  all 
has  been  so  arranged  by  Providence  that  one  and  the  same  result, 
oppression,  necessarily  flows  from  the  most  antagonistic  principles  ? 

"  Referring  to  the  new  policy  towards  which  commercial  freedom 
is  drawing  in  England,  many  persons  make  this  objection,  which  I 
admit  occupies  the  sincerest  minds  :  'Is  England  doing  anything  more 
than  pursuing  the  same  end  by  different  means?  Does  she  not  con- 
stantly aspire  to  universal  supremacy  ?  Sure  of  the  superiority  of 
her  capital  and  labor,  does  she  not  call  in  free  competition  to  stifle 
the  industry  of  the  Continent,  reign  as  sovereign,  and  conquer  the 
privilege  of  feeding  and  clothing  the  ruined  peoples?' 

"  It  would  be  easy  for  me  to  demonstrate  that  these  alarms  are 
chimerical ;  that  our  pretended  inferiority  is  greatly  exaggerated ; 
that  all  our  great  branches  of  industry  not  only  resist  foreign  competi- 
tion, but  develop  themselves  under  its  influence ;  and  that  its  infallible 
effect  is  to  bring  about  an  increase  in  general  consumption,  capable  of 
absorbing  both  foreign  and  domestic  products." 


REVIEW   OF    BASTIAT's   SOPHISMS    OF  PROTECTION.  69 

This  is  the  language  of  the  Anti- Corn-Law  League,  of  the 
Cobclen  Club,  of  the  Manchester  manufacturers,  —  of  the 
spider  to  the  fly. 

Labor  in  its  nature  is  opposed  to  war.  Labor  produces; 
war  destroj's.  Labor  employs  itself  on  things  ;  war  employs 
itself  upon  persons.  Opposite  causes  cannot  produce  identi- 
cal effects.  Does  this,  O  reader,  persuade  you  that  there  is 
no  valid  analogy  between  the  struggles  of  oj^posing  armies 
for  the  possession  of  a  province,  and  the  struggles  of  compet- 
ing industries  for  the  possession  of  a  market  ?  To  seriously 
ask  the  question  would  be  to  insult  you ;  and  yet  the  trash 
is  persuasive  to  the  hasty  reader.  When  he  pauses  for  a 
moment  and  reads  again  he  sees  that  he  is  trifled  with. 

That  which  moves  to  war  is  the  desire  to  overcome  an 
opponent.  That  which  moves  to  industrial  competition  is  the 
desire  to  overcome  an  opponent,  —  to  overcome  one  who  pre- 
vents your  selling  as  much  or  as  dearly  as  you  would.  The 
causes  are  similar.  It  is  only  the  methods  of  procedure  which 
differ.  The  paragraph  about  manufacturing,  supremacy,  Pro- 
vidence, oppression,  and  antagonistic  principles  is  a  similar 
logical  puzzle,  which  an}'-  intelligent  reader  can  solve  for  him- 
self. It  assumes  that  there  are  antagonistic  principles  wher- 
ever the  methods  of  procedure,  the  instruments  used  to  obtain 
the  end,  are  dissimilar.  The  paragraph  commencing,  "  It 
would  be  easy  for  me  to  demonstrate,"'  is  a  bundle  of  asser- 
tions, pure  and  simple.  There  is  not  a  particle  of  argument 
in  it.    The  "  proof"  comes  afterwards  and  consists  in  this  :  — 

"  If  we  see  in  any  product  but  a  cause  of  labor,  it  is  certain  that 
the  alarm  of  the  protectionists  is  well  founded.  If  we  consider  iron, 
for  instance,  only  in  connection  with  the  masters  of  forges,  it  might  be 
feared  that  the  competition  of  a  country  wliere  iron  was  a  gratuitous 
gift  of  nature  would  extinguish  the  furnaces  of  another  country, 
where  ore  and  fuel  were  scarce. 

"  But  is  this  a  complete  view  of  the  subject  ?  Are  these  relations 
only  between  iron  and  those  who  make  it  ?  Has  it  none  with  those 
who  use  it  ?  Is  its  definite  and  only  destination  to  be  produced  ?  And 
if  it  is  useful,  not  only  on  account  of  the  labor  which  it  causes,  but  on 
account  of  the  qualities  which  it  possesses,  and  the  numerous  services 


70  REVIEW    OP   BASTIAT's   SOPHISMS    OF   PROTECTION. 

for  which  its  hardness  and  malleability  fit  it,  does  it  not  follow  that 
foreigners  cannot  reduce  its  price,  even  so  far  as  to  prevent  its  produc- 
tion among  us,  without  doing  us  more  good,  under  the  last  statement 
of  the  case,  than  it  injures  us  under  the  first? 

"  Foreign  superiority  prevents  national  labor  only  under  some  cer- 
tain form,  and  makes  it  superfluous  luider  this  form,  but  by  putting 
at  our  disposal  the  very  result  of  the  labor  thus  annihilated." 

This  is  wonderful !    What  earthly  relevancy  has  the  second 
paragraph?     Is  not  French  iron  hard  and  malleable?     The 
French  have  iron  in  either  case.    The  only  question  is  whether 
they  shall  have  it  at  one  price  made  at  home  or  at  another  price 
made  abroad ;  and  in  a  former   chapter  M.  Bastiat  put  the 
price  at  twelve  francs  for  French  and  eight  francs  for  English 
iron.    But  he  argues  that  to  procure  the  English  iron,"  France 
will  have  only  to  "  detach  "  from  her  general  labor  a  smaller 
portion  than  she  would  require  to  produce  it  herself.     France 
would  save  one  third  of  the  labor  before  used  in  making  iron. 
The  careful  reader  will  see  that  he  assumes  that  the  whole 
labor  power  of  the  country  is  employed  in  either  case  ;  while 
the  fact  is,  and  must  be,  that  the  whole  is  not  employed  in 
either  case.     Even  when  France  makes  her  own  iron,  every 
industry  within  her  borders  is  limited  by  the  limits  of  the 
field  of  employment.     There  are  so  many  desires  known  to 
her  people  which  they  have  found  out  means  of  gratifying 
■with  such  expenditure  of  effort  as  they  are  willing  to  pay,  — 
so  many  and  no  more.    Their  desires  even  are  not  infinite  ;  but 
even  if  they  were,  the  desires  they  know  how  to  gratify  with- 
out more  exertion  than  they  are  willing  to  make,  are  very  far 
from  infinite  ;  they  are   quite  limited.     Their  aggregate   of 
these  constitutes  the  field  of  employment,  outside  of  which 
there  are  always  (except  during  peiiods  of  abnormal  excite- 
ment and   perhaps  even    then)  many  unemployed   persons, 
many  half  employed  persons,  many  persons  helping  others  to 
do  what  they  can  well  enough  do  alone.     This  unemployed 
labor  is  constantly  striving  to  find  something  to  do,  and  the 
unemployed  capital  of  the  country  is  constantly  striving  to 
find  something  to  do,  —  some  means  of  gratifying  a  desire  at 
such  price  as  the  community  will  be  willing  and  able  to  pay. 


REVIEW   OF   BASTIAT'S   SOPHISMS   OF  PROTECTION.  71 

The  community,  then,  does  not  "  detach  "  a  portion  of  its 
previously  employed  labor  to  make  iron,  but  a  portion  and 
only  a  portion  of  its  previously  it/icmployed  or  half  employed 
labor,  and  the  then  more  fully  employed  labor  has  the  means 
of  buying  from  all  the  other  industries  ;  their  field  of  employ- 
ment is  increased.  According  to  M.  Bastiat's  philosoph}^  if 
iron  and  its  products  should  suddenly  be  rained  down  out  of 
the  sky  already  shaped  for  use,  the  United  States  would 
immediately  have  set  free  an  amount  of  labor  that  would  pro- 
duce "something  else  "  to  the  value  of,  say,  three  hundred 
millions  of  dollars.  But  "  everything  else "  for  which  the 
people  have  a  desire  is  already  produced  to  a  somewhat  greater 
extent  than  can  be  sold,  as  is  evidenced  by  the  existing  sur- 
plus stocks  of  commodities.  The  total  industry  of  the  com- 
munity is  kept  up  by  motives,  and  one  of  these  motives  is  the 
desire  for  iron.  The  immediate  effect,  then,  of  iron  dropping 
down  ready  fashioned  from  the  skies  would  be  to  diminish 
the  field  of  employment  to  the  extent  of,  say,  three  hundred 
millions ;  but  as  iron  is  only  a  means  towards  procuring  other 
things,  notably,  food,  clothing,  shelter,  and  transportation, 
the  getting  iron  for  nothing  might  make  it  possible  to  procure 
a  greater  supply  of  food,  clothing,  shelter,  and  transportation, 
with  the  same  effort,  and  the  ultimate  result  might  be  that 
as  great  or  even  a  greater  field  of  employment  would  be  found 
in  producing  a  greater  supply.  But  meanwhile,  during  the 
growth  of  a  larger  demand  for  food,  clothing,  shelter,  and 
transportation,  between  two  and  three  millions  of  people 
would  have  to  go  without  food,  clothing,  shelter,  and  trans- 
portation, or  squeeze  them  by  competition  out  of  the  balance 
of  the  community.  The  immediate  effect  would  certainly  be 
a  great  diminution  of  the  effective  demand  of  the  community 
for  food,  clothing,  shelter,  and  transportation,  —  a  glut. 
There  would  be  much  more  of  all  these  than  the  community 
as  a  whole  had  means  of  buying.  There  would  be  a  period 
of  distress  and  depression,  and  political  economy  does  not 
perhaps,  at  present,  possess  the  means  of  saying  how  long 
such  depression  would  continue,  nor  even  of  saying  decis- 
ively that  it  would  not  end  in  a  permanent  deterioration  of 


72         REVIEW  OP  bastiat's  sophisms  of  protection. 

the  condition  of  the  community ;  in  which  case  the  seem- 
ing gift  would  prove  to  be  a  gigantic  evil,  somewhat  analo- 
gous to  the  fortune  with  which  a  fond  father  paralyzes  the 
powers  and  prevents  the  development  of  his  children.  It  is 
to  be  hoped  that  political  economy  will  not  always  be  incom- 
petent to  solve  such  problems  ;  but  it  certainly  will  be  as  long 
as  it  remains  innocent  of  all  knowledge  of  their  existence  ; 
so  long  as,  with  M.  Bastiat  and  Mr.  J.  S.  Mill,  it  supposes  that 
displaced  labor  and  capital  always  find  "something  else  "  to  do. 
The  writer  feels  guilty  for  having  mentioned  so  upright 
and  serious  a  writer  as  Mr.  J.  S.  Mill  in  the  same  sentence  as 
M.  Bastiat ;  but  they  agreed  in  supporting  the  same  doctrine 
as  to  capital  and  its  effects  upon  industry,  and  in  the  deduc- 
tions from  that  doctrine  ;  in  all  else  they  are  very  wide  apart. 
In  reviewing  Mr.  Mill,  one  would  be  spared  the  disagreeable 
task  of  combating  the  arts  of  the  rhetorical  sophist,  the 
appeals  to  prejudice,  to  anger,  to  pit}',  to  greed,  to  supersti- 
tion, to  misguided  or  affected  philanthropy.  He  would  meet 
with  some  very  important  errors  in  reasoning,  strange  as  this 
is  in  an  unquestionably  pre-eminent  logician  ;  but  everything 
is  honest,  straightforward,  and  such  as  the  spirit  of  tlie  great 
reasoner,  looking  back  upon  life,  need  not  blush  to  have 
written.  M.  Bastiat  closes  his  "  Sophisms  of  Protection  "  as 
follows :  — 

"  Let  us  decide  that  supremacy  by  labor  is  impossible  and  contra- 
dictory, since  all  superiority  which  manifests  itself  among  a  people  is 
converted  into  cheapness,  and  results  only  in  giving  force  to  all  others. 
Let  us,  then,  banish  from  political  economy  all  those  expressions  bor- 
rowed from  the  vocabulary  of  battles  :  to  struggle  with  equal  arms,  to 
conquer,  to  crush  out,  to  stijie,  to  be  beaten,  invasion,  tribute.  What  do 
these  words  mean  ?  Squeeze  them,  and  nothing  comes  out  of  them. 
"VYe  are  mistaken ;  there  come  from  them  absurd  errors  and  fatal 
prejudices.  These  are  the  words  which  stop  the  blending  of  peoples, 
their  peaceful,  universal,  indissoluble  alliance,  and  the  progress  of 
humanity." 

So  writes  ]\I.  Bastiat.  Now  compare  with  his  words  those 
of  Horace  Greeley.  Speaking  of  some  strictures  upon  the 
effects  of  reckless  competition,  hs  says  :  — 


REVIEW   OP   BASTIAT'S   SOPHISMS    OP   PROTECTION.  73 

"  The  justice  of  these  strictures  I  have  at  least  twice  seen  realized 
on  a  gigantic  scale,  in  the  general  prostration  of  the  manufacturing 
industry  of  my  countrymen  under  the  pressure  of  European,  mainly 
of  English,  competition.  That  industry  was  thus  crushed  out  after  the 
peace  of  1815,  when  the  eminent  Henry  Brougham  (afterwards  Lord 
Brougham)  remarked  (when  Great  Britain  was  pouring  out  the  goods 
that  crushed  our  then  infant  manufactures)  that  '  England  can  afford 
to  incur  some  loss  ybr  the  purpose  of  destroying  foreign  manufactures  in 
their  cradle  ;  '  and  the  noted  economist  and  free-trader,  Joseph  Hume, 
made  a  similar  remark  in  1828.  Our  tariff  enacted  in  that  year 
rendered  all  efforts  to  cripple  and  prostrate  our  manufacturing  industry 
temporarily  fruitless ;  but  it  was  otherwise  after  the  compromise 
tariff"  of  1833  began  to  take  full  effect,  in  the  reduction  of  the  duties 
to  a  (presumptively)  revenue  standard  which  culminated  in  the  collapse 
alike  of  industry  and  revenue  in  1840-42. 

"  A  report  on  strikes  made  to  the  British  Parliament  in  1854  sig- 
nificantly said :  — 

"  'Authentic  instances  are  well  known  of  (British)  employers  having 
in  such  times  (of  depressed  prices),  carried  on  their  works  at  a  loss 
amounting  to  three  or  four  hundred  thousand  pounds  in  the  course  of 
three  or  four  years.  If  the  efforts  of  those  who  encourage  the  com- 
bination to  restrict  the  amount  of  labor,  and  to  produce  strikes,  were 
to  be  successful  for  any  length  of  time,  the  great  accumulations  of 
capital  could  no  longer  be  made  which  enable  a  few  of  the  most 
wealthy  capitalists  to  overwhelm  all  foreign  competition  in  times  of 
great  depression,  and  thus  to  clear  the  way  for  the  whole  trade  to  step 
in  when  prices  revive,  and  to  carry  on  a  great  business  before  foreign 
capital  can  again  accumulate  to  establish  a  competition  in  prices,  with 
any  chance  of  success.  The  great  capitals  of  this  country  are  the 
great  instruments  of  warfare  against  the  competing  capitals  of  other 
countries,  and  are  the  most  essential  instruments  now  remaining,  by 
which  our  manufacturing  supremacy  can  be  maintained ;  the  other 
elements,  cheap  labor,  abundance  of  raw  materials,  means  of  communi- 
cation, and  skilled  labor  being  rapidly  in  progress  of  being  equalized.'  " 

It  will  be  seen  that  Mr.  Greeley  bears  witness  to  our  indus- 
tries having  been  twice  prostrated  by  their  English  competi- 
tors in  his  time,  and  it  is  matter  of  general  knowledge  also 
that  the  same  thing  happened  to  the  Portuguese  industries 
after  the  treaty  of  Methuen,  and  to  the  Irish  industries  after 
the  union,  and  so  with  Turkey  and  India. 

10 


74         REVIEW  OP  bastiat's  sophisms  op  protection. 

The  reader  can  then  form  his  own  opinion  about  the  hardi- 
hood of  M.  Bastiat  when  he  attempted  to  prove  that  such 
things  cannot  happen,  by  a  process  of  false  logic  which  has 
been  the  somewhat  disagreeable  task  of  the  writer  to  expose. 
The  rest  of  his  book  is  made  up  chiefly  of  rhetorical  sophisms, 
in  which  taxes  and  obstacles  which  do  increase  the  productive 
power  of  the  community  are  classed  with  the  taxes  and 
obstacles  which  do  not  increase  it ;  of  appeals  to  our  pity  that 
the  ^^poor  workman"  after  getting  his  wages  from  his  fellow- 
citizens,  should  not  be  allowed  to  spend  them  among  foreign- 
ers, and  in  appeals  to  class  prejudices  by  abuse  of  every  descrip- 
tion poured  out  upon  everybody  who  is  protected  from  the 
English  manufacturer.  They  are  cheats,  swindlers,  robbers, 
monopolists,  oppressors,  thieves ! 

Now  it  has  been  held  by  every  respectable  economist,  from 
Adam  Smith  down,  that  it  is  impossible  for  any  industry  to 
long  obtain  a  profit  above  that  usual  in  the  community ;  and 
it  would  seem,  therefore,  that  all  this  abuse  is  as  unjust  as 
it  is  unseemly ;  but  if  there  be  in  any  case  reason  to  fear  that 
manufacturers  may  combine  to  exact  a  higher  profit,  our  own 
are  within  reach  of  control.  Let  the  fact  be  proved,  and 
nothing  is  easier  than  to  bring  them  to  reason,  by  simply 
reducing  the  duty  to  what  will  give  them  an  adequate  and 
not  an  excessive  protection.  "We  should  have  no  such  power 
over  the  foreigners.  When  they  have  once  ruined  our  own 
industries  they  can,  if  they  combine,  charge  us  whatever 
they  please. 

If,  then,  there  be  any  foundation  for  the  cry  of  monopoly, 
the  possibility  of  such  a  combination  is  the  best  of  all  reasons 
for  standing  by  our  own  and  not  the  alien  manufacturers. 
These  can  be  ruled.     The  others  cannot. 

Part  III.,  —  "  Spoliation  and  Law." 

This  supremely  sophistical  chapter  endeavors  to  connect,  in 
the  mind  of  the  reader,  the  totally  different  matters  of  pro- 
tection and  communism.  At  the  time  it  was  written,  society 
in  France  was  alarmed  at  the  pretensions  of  communism,  and 
the  endeavor  to  make  out  some  similarity  between  it  and 


REVIEW   OF   BASTIAT'S   SOPHISMS   OF   PROTECTION.  75 

protection  was  as  shrewd  as  anything  can  be  which  is  abso- 
lutely dishonest.  The  same  attempt  has  been  made  by  the 
unscrupulous  upon  this  side  of  the  Atlantic. 

Civilized  men  everywhere  recognize,  either  consciously  or 
unconsciously,  the  fact  that,  without  the  aid  of  tools,  machines, 
improved  farms,  mills,  forges,  railroads,  stores  of  food,  mate- 
rials, and  shelter,  etc.,  —  without,  in  short,  the  aid  of  instru- 
ments of  production,  the  gross  annual  product  of  labor 
would  be  incomparably  less  than  it  is  ;  they  recognize,  also, 
that  these  instruments  of  production  cannot  come  into  exist- 
ence nor  be  kept  in  repair,  except  through  abstinence,  which 
is,  therefore,  entitled  to  such  portion  of  the  increased  product 
as  demand  and  supply  determine  to  be  the  just  value  of 
their  use ;  they  recognize,  also,  that  to  allow  individuals  to 
possess  these  instruments  and  enjoy  said  portion  of  their 
fruits  is  the  most  economical  and  efficient  method  for  bring- 
ing them  into  existence  and  keeping  them  in  repair,  utility 
being  here  completely  at  one  with  justice  ;  they  recognize 
even  that  those  proprietors  who  do  nothing  except  to  live 
within  their  income  do,  nevertheless,  thereby  render  a  most 
essential  service  to  society,  for  living  within  their  income  is 
nothing  less  than  keeping  in  repair  the  "  instruments  "  which 
furnish  them  with  incomes  ;  and  in  recognizing,  consciously 
or  unconsciously,  these  facts,  all  men  of  common  sense  per- 
ceive the  rights  of  property  to  be  based  upon  the  all-sufficient 
foundation  of  the  greatest  good  to  the  whole  society,  —  not 
the  greatest  good  only  for  to-day,  or  this  year,  but  for  all 
time.  But  the  common  sense  of  mankind  also  recognizes 
that,  while  the  greatest  good  of  the  whole  is  tlie  foundation 
of  the  rights  of  property,  it  also  puts  limits  to  those  rights. 
As  they  are  founded  and  justified  by  the  good  of  tlie  whole, 
they  must  logically  be  restricted  to  that  which  in  the  long 
run  is  beneficial  to  all.  No  man  is  allowed  to  use  his  prop- 
erty to  found  a  college  for  teaching  what  the  community 
generally  accounts  to  be  vice,  nor  to  run  gambling-houses  or 
lotteries,  nor  to  erect  unsafe  houses,  nor  to  sail  ships  which 
have  become  unseaworthy,  nor  to  establish  anything  which  is 
a  nuisance  or  a  source  of  disease,  nor  to  run  a  bank  except 


76  revif:w  of  bastiat's  sophisms  of  protection 

under  conditions  protecting  public  interests,  etc.,  ad  infinitum. 
Property  is  not  weakened  by  these  necessary  and  proper  re- 
straints, but  only  prevented  from  weakening  its  own  just  and 
legitimate  claims,  and  becoming  in  some  respects  a  nuisance, 
instead  of  a  great  blessing  to  the  community.  Indeed,  he  is 
no  friend  of  property,  but  its  dangerous  enemy,  who  maintains 
that  each  single  possessor  has  the  indefeasible  right  to  veto  the 
decisions  of  the  whole  society,  and  that,  too,  in  the  cause  of  a 
pseudo-theory  composed  of  a  vast  mass  of  bad  logic  and  of 
totally  irrelevant  rhetoric.  The  argimient  that  "  the  highest 
right  of  property  is  the  right  to  exchange  it  for  other  property ; " 
that,  therefore,  any  restraint  or  regulation  of  this  right,  —  in 
short,  the  forbidding  of  any  exchange,  however  detrimental, 
—  is  an  unwarrantable  invasion  of  the  rights  of  property,  and 
therefore  akin  to  communism, —  this  argument  can  only  be 
used  by  one  who  has  the  incredible  folly  to  suppose  that  the 
American  people  are  a  nation  of  unmitigated  noodles. 

In  the  first  place,  the  right  to  exchange  it  is  not  the  highest 
right  of  property.  A  higher  right  still  is  the  right  to  an 
unmolested  enjoyment  either  of  the  property  itself  or  of  the 
income  thereof.  Second,  another  higher  right  is  the  right  to 
protection  against  foreign  attacks,  whether  civil  or  military. 
Third,  if  even  it  were  the  highest  right,  this,  like  every  other 
right  of  property,  must  give  way  before  the  vastly  higher 
and  more  important  rights  of  the  whole  community.  Com- 
pensation is  given  where  the  case  requires  it ;  compensation 
is  not  given  where  the  interference  produces  no  damage,  but 
a  great  benefit,  as  when  protective  laws  are  passed. 

"  But,"  exclaim  the  free-traders,  "  protective  laws  are  not 
a  benefit,  but  an  injury." 

Ah,  gentlemen,  you  undertook  to  bolster  the  doctrine  of  free 
trade  by  an  argument  from  the  rights  of  property  ;  but  we 
now  find  that  the  argument  about  the  rights  of  property  breaks 
down  unless  we  first  assume  the  free-trade  doctrine  to  be  cor- 
rect. You  are  attempting  to  make  two  doctrines  hold  each 
other  up,  when  neither  the  one  nor  the  other  can  stand  alone. 

If  the  free-trade  doctrine  were  sound,  the  interference  with 
foreign  exchanges  would  be  unwise,  but  by  no  means  beyond 


REVIEW   OF   BASTIAT'S   SOPHISMS   OP   PROTECTION.  77 

the  restrictive  rights  of  the  whole  people  ;  if  the  protection- 
ist doctrine  be  sound,  the  interference  is  eminently  beneficial ; 
but,  in  either  case,  there  is  nothing  resembling  the  proposed 
communistic  abolition  of  property'  which  would  be  ruinous 
alike  to  individual  owners  and  to  the  public. 

The  attempt,  then,  to  smooch  protection  by  coupling  it 
wdth  communism  is  simply  a  dishonest  rhetorical  artifice,  dis- 
graceful to  tlie  author  and  insulting  to  the  readers  whom  he 
addresses.     It  is  precisely  equivalent  to  calling  them  fools. 

And  here  we  come  to  the  end  of  a  book  which  shows 
much  wit,  vivacity,  ingenuity,  and  audacity,  but  which 
stands  almost  alone  among  transatlantic  productions  for  the 
entire  absence  of  that  serious,  earnest  desire  for  truth  which 
political  economists  usually  display.  Others  may  involve 
themselves  in  logical  puzzles ;  but  they  appear  to  do  so  unin- 
tentionally. Possibly  this  may  have  also  been  the  case  with 
M.  Bastiat,  and  the  semblance  of  flippancy  and  insincerity 
may  be  rather  apparent  than  real ;  but,  at  all  events,  one 
cannot  rise  from  a  diligent  study  of  him  without  a  profound 
conviction  that  no  member  of  the  Free  Trade  League  can 
have  carefully  perused  the  book  which  they  translated  and 
printed  in  order  "  to  educate  public  opinion  in  the  United 
States,  and  convince  the  people  of  the  folly  and  wrongfulness 
of  the  protective  system." 

Any  other  conviction  would  involve  the  gross  insult  of 
supposing  them  to  be  either  exceedingly  flat  or  exceedingly 
dishonest,  or  both. 

Bastiat's  sophistries  are  based  chiefly  upon  the  following 
erroneous  propositions :  — 

"  1.  That  industry  is  limited  by  capital,  whereas  both  are  limited  by 
the  field  of  employment. 

"  2.     That  human  labor  is  never  without  employment. 

"  3.  That  the  wages  fund  is  a  fixed  amount,  equal  to  the  existing  cap- 
ital, and  the  whole  of  it  always  employed. 

"  4.  That  protective  laws,  which  cause  more  people  to  be  employed 
with  increased  production,  are  the  same  in  effect  as  dull  axes,  ob- 
structed canals,  working  with  the  left  hand,  amputating  one  hand, 
etc.,  which  would  cause  more  people  to  be  employed  without 
increased  production. 


78  REVIEW   OF   BASTIAT'S   SOPHISMS   OF   PROTECTION. 

"  5.  That  inasmuch  as  many  obstacles  to  exchanges  are  also  obstacles 
to  opulence,  therefore  all  obstacles  to  exchanges  are  obstacles  to 
opulence." 

In  short,  the  argumentative  portion  of  the  book  displays 
a  neglect  of  every  canon  of  logic,  both  inductive  and  deduc- 
tive. The  rest  is  rhetoric,  and  is  good  of  its  kind,  —  witty, 
vivacious,  impressive,  and  well  suited  to  impose  upon  those 
who  are  not  clever  enough  to  see  that  it  proves  nothing,  and 
is  totally  inapplicable  to  any  existing  society  or  to  any  society 
which  could  exist  while  man  is  constituted  as  he  is. 

Common  sense  is  unconscious  logic ;  logic  not  yet  intro- 
spective ;  logic  which  has  not  yet  named  its  processes,  but 
which  sees  and  casts  aside  a  blunder  intuitively ;  and  there 
is  too  much  of  this  sort  of  logic  in  the  brains  of  the  working 
people  of  America  to  allow  much  harm  to  come  from  such  a 
book  as  Bastiat's  "  Sophisms  of  Protection." 


EEVIEW   OF   BASTIAT's   SOPHISMS   OP   PROTECTION.  79 

1  My  friend,  Mr.  David  H.  Mason,  observes  here  :  "  That,  in  point  of  fact, 
individuals  do  not  possess  the  claimed  riglit,  and  have  least  of  it  where  civili- 
zation is  greatest.  The  disposition  of  one's  own  property  is  not  a  natural  right, 
but  a  conventional  right,  —  a  right  limited  by  law  or  by  custom,  based  on  the 
views  taken  of  tiie  individual's  obligations  to  the  society  of  which  he  is  a  unit. 
Whatever  may  be  said  theoretically  about  the  right  of  each  individual  to  the 
free  disposition  of  his  own  property,  he  does  not  in  any  civilized  community 
possess  such  claimed  right.  Restraint,  in  a  multitude  of  forms,  confronts  every 
member  of  the  community  in  the  disposition  of  his  property.  No  person  can 
legally  dispose  of  his  property  in  such  a  way  as  to  interfere  with  the  rights  of  his 
fellow-citizens.  He  cannot  use  his  capital  to  erect  a  frame-building  witiiin  the 
limits  of  a  municipal  fire-district.  He  cannot  spend  his  money  so  as  to  commit 
a  public  nuisance;  as,  for  example,  by  locating  a  bone  or  soap  factory,  with  its 
noisome  stench,  amid  the  residence  quarter  of  a  town.  He  cannot,  without 
incurring  heavy  penalties,  invest  his  means  in  publishing  clearly  immoral  news- 
papers or  books,  which  operate  to  debauch  public  sentiment.  If  he  is  an  apothe- 
cary, he  cannot  sell  poisons  indiscriminately,  but  is  therein  subjected  to  various 
restrictions.  If  he  is  a  manufacturer,  he  cannot  purchase  for  use  in  his  business 
any  machinery  which  infringes  a  patent,  without  making  himself  liable  for 
exemplary  damages.  If  he  is  a  publisher,  he  cannot,  without  violating  the  law 
and  incurring  its  punishment,  print  a  book  for  sale  which  has  been  copyrighted 
in  his  country,  and  for  which  printing  he  does  not  possess  the  imprimatur  of  the 
author  or  the  permission  of  the  owner.  If  he  is  a  shipmaster,  he  cannot  sail 
his  vessel  into  the  harbor  of  destination  according  to  his  own  separate  will,  but 
according  to  the  will  of  the  health-officer  of  the  port,  who  may  force  him  into 
detention  at  quarantine  quarters.  Formerly  in  the  Southern  States  it  was  legal 
to  dispose  of  negroes  as  property.  That  was  then  a  conventional  right;  now  it 
is  a  conventional  wrong.  A  protective  tariff  rests  upon  the  same  general  prin- 
ciple, that  society  is  injured  by  permitting  to  individuals  the  free  disposition  of 
their  property  in  purchase  of  or  exchange  for  imported  property." 

2  Much  protection  was  taken  from  pig-iron,  the  base  of  our  iron  and  steel 
industries  in  1870,  and  there  was  a  heavy  reduction  of  duties  on  a  wide  range 
of  manufactures  in  1872.  But  for  these  changes  the  country  might  perhaps 
have  escaped  the  panic  of  1873  in  spite  of  the  contraction  of  the  currency,  &c. 

3  After  all  the  treasure  it  can  possibly  spare  is  gone,  government  bonds,  rail 
road  bonds  and  stock,  mortgages,  &c.,  will  go,  and  during  all  this  process  B  will 
be  unable  to  compete  with  A  by  manufacturing  for  herself.  The  industries  in 
which  she  is  inferior  will  be  destroyed,  and  she  will  be  kept  continually  in  the 
condition  of  treasure-famine.  She  will  never  have  enough  of  the  precious 
metals  to  suffice  as  a  basis  for  a  safe  and  stable  currency. 

*  There  is  an  exception  -when  the  individuals  of  a  community  invest  largely 
in  other  lands ;  but  this  kind  of  wealth,  as  Adam  Smith  has  observed,  is  of  a 
very  unstable  and  fugitive  character. 


MAY  1 1  1978 

DATE  DUE 

1 

1 

1 

GAYLORD 

PRINTED  IN  U    S    A 

FACILITY 


] 

I 


V 


■  L 


I 

1 

J 

1 

^ 

